-9-
took an especially skeptical view of the situation, the final
quoted phrase in the disclaimer and the savings clause meant that
the Commissioner would face an interesting choice if he thought
the estate was lowballing its own value--any success in
increasing the value of the estate might only increase the
charitable deduction that the estate would claim. Which would
presumably reduce the incentive of the Commissioner to challenge
the value that the estate claimed for itself.
And that, more or less, is the Commissioner’s view of what
was going on here.5 As we noted, Christiansen owned 99 percent
limited-partnership interests in both MHC Land and Cattle and
Christiansen Investments when she died. She also owned $219,000
of real property, and over $700,000 in cash and other assets.
The estate obtained appraisals of the limited-partnership
interests, including a 35 percent discount for being a “minority
interest,” and reported on its estate-tax return that the 99
percent limited-partnership interest in MHC Land and Cattle had a
fair market value of $4,182,750, and that the 99 percent limited-
5 We do note that Hamilton and her husband had no children
of their own--Christiansen’s estate plan should not be viewed as
a way to keep a great deal of property in the family with only a
veneer of charitable intent. But the combination of the Trust,
the Foundation, and the disclaimer embodied both charitable and
estate-planning purposes. In this case, we analyze the legal
consequences of those instruments, not the factual issue of the
motivation behind them.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008