Goss v. Fitzpatrick

97 F. Supp. 765, 40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 885, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4380
CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedApril 10, 1951
DocketCiv. 2688
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 97 F. Supp. 765 (Goss v. Fitzpatrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goss v. Fitzpatrick, 97 F. Supp. 765, 40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 885, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4380 (D. Conn. 1951).

Opinion

SMITH, District Judge.

Memorandum of Decision.

This is an action brought by the executors of the estate of John H. Goss for the recovery of $38,390.47 with interest, a portion of the Federal estate taxes paid as a *766 result of claimed overvaluation, by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of voting-trust certificates for 1900 shares of common stock of the Alden M. Young Company. The Collector valued the stock as being worth, on October 16, 1944, the date of the decedent’s death, $106 per share, arrived at by dividing the stipulated market value of the assets of the Alden M. Young Company, less the amount of the outstanding preferred stock, by the total number of shares of common stock outstanding.

Statute and Regulations Involved.

Internal Revenue Code.

“§ 811. Gross estate.

“The value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including the value at the time of his death of all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated * * *.

* * * * * *

“(k) Valuation of unlisted stock and securities. In the case of stock and securities of a corporation the value of which by reason of their not being listed on an exchange and by reason of the absence of sales thereof, cannot be determined with reference to bid and asked prices or with reference to sales prices, the value thereof shall be determined taking into consideration, in addition to all other factors, the value of stock or securities of corporations engaged in the same or a similar line of business which are listed on an exchange.” 26 U.S.C.A. § 811.

Treasury Regulations 105, relating to the estate tax under the Internal Revenue Code:

Sec. 81.10. Valuation of Property.

(a) General. — The value of every item of property includible in the gross estate is the fair market value thereof at the time of the decedent’s death; * * * The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell. The fair market value of a particular kind of property includible in the gross estate is not to be determined by a forced sale price. Such value is to be determined by ascertaining as a basis the fair market value as of the applicable valuation date of each unit of the property. For example, in the case of shares of stock or bonds such unit of property is a share or a bond. All relevant facts and elements of value as of the applicable valuation date should be considered in every case.

(c) (1) The value of stocks and bonds, within the meaning of the Internal Revenue .Code, is the fair market value per share or bond on the applicable valuation date.

(c) (6) If actual sales or bona fide bid and asked prices are not available, then, in the case of * * * shares of stock, upon the basis of the company’s net worth, earning power, dividend paying capacity, and all other relevant factors having a bearing upon the value of the stock. Among such other relevant factors to be considered are the values of securities of corporations engaged in the same or similar line of business which are listed on an exchange. However, the weight to be accorded such comparisons or any other evidentiary factors considered in the determination of a value depends upon the facts of each case * * *.

The value of the underlying assets appears to have been the basis of the Collector’s valuation, although a recalculation at the time of trial shows that the amount which would be distributed to the common stockholders upon liquidation of the company at that date (October 16, 1944) would be approximately $107 per share.

The record does not support such a market value for the voting-trust certificates. The plaintiffs introduced expert evidence, in the opinion of the witness Jones, that the fair market value of such voting-trust certificates would approximate 50% of the asset value underlying the certificates, in the case of minority holdings in this family holding company or investment trust. The principal assets of the trust are marketable securities valued at $1,518,156.39 and real estate of the fair market value of $312,301. The company, however, which was formed in 1912 to manage the assets of the estate of Alden M. Young has *767 shown relatively poor asset value appreciation, earning capacity, and dividend-paying record as well as a relatively high expense ratio over the years immediately preceding and including the date of death of the decedent, John H. Goss.

It is established that the securities of representative investment trusts, with comparatively better standings in these respects, were selling on October 16, 1944, at substantial discounts below the liquidating value of the securities underlying the stock of those investment trusts. Without more, in view of those prevailing market conditions, a discount from the market value of underlying assets of 35%, because of the indirect ownership of the underlying assets, is not unreasonable. Jones also applied a discount of 10% because of what he considered the lack of marketability of the minority stock in view of the fact that it was closely held, unlisted and subject to the voting-trust agreement. He applied a further discount of 5% in view of the possibility that a substantial portion of the assets might have to be sacrificed at unfavorable market prices in cases of demand by the preferred stockholders, brought about by their individual tax situations at any time, for redemption by the company of the preferred stock. These two discounts are based on factors which must be considered and which undoubtedly do exist in this picture. They may separately be composed in part of some of the unfavorable factors taken into consideration in arriving at the 35% indirect-ownership factor. However, valuation on a basis of capitalization of 5 years’ average earnings supports an even greater total discount, as pointed out by Jones.

Taking into account the probable overlapping to some extent of the discount factors used by Jones, the stipulated values of the underlying assets, the earning record and the other factors mentioned, a fair market value of the voting-trust certificates appears to the Court to be $60 a share.

The defendants offer no ■ countervailing evidence of market value but contend for a valuation on the basis of underlying values rather than market values of the voting-trust certificates. In spite of the market value requirement and need for consideration of earning record, and other factors to comply with the statute and regulations, they contend that such a valuation method as proposed by them- is justified and necessary in order to avoid leaving a loophole for escape of a substantial proportion of estate and gift taxes through the creation of closely-held family investment companies whose shares rather than the underlying securities would be subject to valuation for tax purposes. There is, of course, no claim that the Alden M. Young Company was created for any such purposes for it has existed since prior to the original income tax and gift tax laws and was created for legitimate purposes of conserving a financially embarrassed estate without any thought of tax effects.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Estate of Ford v. Commissioner
1993 T.C. Memo. 580 (U.S. Tax Court, 1993)
Estate of Jephson v. Commissioner
81 T.C. No. 64 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Estate of Maxcy v. Commissioner
1969 T.C. Memo. 158 (U.S. Tax Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 F. Supp. 765, 40 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 885, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goss-v-fitzpatrick-ctd-1951.