- 43 -
appraisal). The allocation to each petitioner of a share of the
value of the intangible assets of the newly-formed medical group,
though performed by a nonexpert (Dr. Levin, one of petitioners),
was reasonable, petitioners argue, and was ratified by expert
opinion. In addition, petitioners argue, the Commissioner
indicated in a determination letter and in certain training
manuals that a charitable contribution deduction was available in
similar circumstances for the transfer of medical practice
intangible assets in connection with the acquisition of a group
medical practice by a section 501(c)(3) organization.
Consequently, petitioners contend, respondent has a duty of
consistency with the foregoing in his litigating position in this
case.
Respondent disputes all of petitioners' arguments.
Respondent contends that petitioners have failed to show that the
value of the assets they transferred to SMF, including any
intangible assets of their medical practices, exceeded the values
of the consideration each received in exchange therefor.
Consequently, respondent argues, petitioners have failed to
satisfy the test outlined in United States v. Am. Bar Endowment,
supra. Respondent further argues, relying on United States v. Am.
Bar Endowment, supra, and Hernandez v. Commissioner, supra, that
petitioners lacked donative intent in light of the substantial
benefits that they expected to, and did in fact, receive in return
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008