- 22 -
to the natural objects of one’s bounty or to convey that interest
for less than full and adequate consideration.” See Estate of
True v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-167, affd. 390 F.3d 1210
(10th Cir. 2004); Bommer Revocable Trust v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1997-380. This is another instance where respondent
narrowly focuses on some of the transactions at issue without
taking into account that the E&Y value of the stock was used in
many instances. For example, in the case of a charitable
donation, a higher value would be preferable because that would
result in a larger deduction. We reject respondent’s suggestion
that almost 250 shareholders would harmoniously accept an
artificially low valuation of the Huber stock so that a few
people who may or may not be related to them can pay less estate
tax. Further, respondent’s assumption that offering a stock to
the public would have garnered a higher price is purely
hypothetical. The only evidence respondent offers is a
mischaracterization of the Huber bylaws.
Respondent maintains that the buyback provisions provide a
price that is higher than the E&Y value. According to
respondent’s logic, if the stock were offered to a third party
and Huber exercised its right of first refusal, it would buy the
shares back at a price higher than the E&Y price. This is
incorrect. While the formula price set in the bylaws may be
higher than the E&Y value, respondent ignores the fact that any
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011