                               T.C. Memo. 2015-237



                         UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  SUMNER REDSTONE, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



      Docket No. 8097-13.                           Filed December 9, 2015.



      David R. Andelman, Juliette M. Galicia, Lawrence Michael Hill, and

Richard A. Nessler, for petitioner.

      Carina J. Campobasso and Janet F. Appel, for respondent.



            MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


      LAUBER, Judge: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) deter-

mined against petitioner a gift tax deficiency of $737,625 for the calendar quarter

ending September 30, 1972. Respondent also determined an addition to tax of

$368,813 under section 6653(b) for fraud and (alternatively) an addition to tax of
                                         -2-

[*2] $36,881 under section 6653(a) for negligence and an addition to tax of

$184,406 under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file a timely gift tax return.1 The

focus of the parties’ dispute is whether petitioner’s 1972 transfer of stock to his

children was a “gift” for Federal gift tax purposes or was (as petitioner contends) a

transfer for an “adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth.” See

sec. 2512(b). We find that this transfer was a taxable gift and determine its value

on the transfer date. We conclude that petitioner is not liable for any additions to

tax.

                               FINDINGS OF FACT

       Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of

facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated by this reference. When he peti-

tioned this Court, Sumner Redstone (Sumner or petitioner) resided in California.

Family and Business Background

       Michael “Mickey” Redstone was born on April 11, 1902. He married Belle

Redstone, and the couple had two children, Sumner and Edward. Sumner gradua-

ted from Harvard College in 1944 and Harvard Law School in 1947. He practiced

       1
        All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect
for the tax period in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure. We round all dollar amounts to the nearest dollar. During
1972, the tax period in issue, what are now “penalties” for fraud and negligence
were denominated “additions to tax.”
                                        -3-

[*3] law for several years, including a stint in the Tax Division of the U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice, before starting work in 1954 for the family business. Sumner

married Phyllis, and they had two children, Brent and Shari. Edward attended

college and business school before joining the family business in 1952. He

married Leila, and they likewise had two children, Michael and Ruth Ann.2

      Mickey entered the drive-in movie theater business in 1936. Between 1936

and 1954, Mickey bought real estate throughout the Northeast and built numerous

drive-in theaters. He incorporated Northeast Theatre Corporation (Northeast) in

1954, and it became the management company for the Redstone family business.

For each drive-in theater, Mickey typically incorporated three separate entities:

one to own the real estate, one to operate the theater, and one to manage refresh-

ments. Mickey, Edward, and Sumner eventually came to own various percentages

of these various corporations, with Mickey’s aggregate share being the largest.

      As the family business grew, this complex corporate structure made it cum-

bersome to obtain financing. To solve this problem and to consolidate the inter-

ests of Mickey, Edward, and Sumner in a single entity, National Amusements, Inc.


      2
       Edward died in 2011, and his estate is the petitioner in Estate of Redstone
v. Commissioner, 145 T.C. __ (Oct. 26, 2015). While that case and the instant
case share a common factual background, they present different issues and the
resolution of these issues depends to some degree on different evidence.
                                        -4-

[*4] (NAI) was incorporated as a holding company on August 28, 1959. Its

articles of incorporation named Mickey, Edward, and Sumner as the original

directors; Mickey was elected president, Sumner vice president, and Edward

secretary-treasurer. At the time of trial, NAI was a closely held corporation head-

quartered in Norwood, Massachusetts.

      Upon NAI’s incorporation, Mickey, Edward, and Sumner each contributed

to it their stock in the pre-existing movie companies. The book value of the stock

that each contributed was $30,328, $17,845, and $18,445, respectively. Mickey

also contributed $3,000 in cash. According to the minutes of the first meeting of

directors dated September 1, 1959, a total of 300 shares of class A voting common

stock were to be issued: 100 shares each to Mickey, Edward, and Sumner. It was

Mickey’s decision to divide the shares evenly. Consistently with these decisions,

the stock certificates indicated that Mickey, Edward, and Sumner were each regis-

tered owners of 100 unrestricted shares of NAI common stock. All of the physical

stock certificates were retained in NAI’s corporate office.

      The decisions taken at NAI’s organizational meeting contained the seeds of

the problem that would blossom into the tax dispute now before us. Whereas

Mickey, Edward, and Sumner were each registered owners of 33.33% of NAI’s
                                        -5-

[*5] stock, the values of their contributions to NAI were disproportionate to their

shareholdings, as follows:

       Item                  Mickey          Sumner        Edward         Total
 Cash contributed             $3,000           -0-            -0-         $3,000
 Property contributed         30,328         $18,445      $17,845         66,618
  Total                       33,328          18,445       17,845         69,618
 Percentage                   47.88%          26.49%       25.63%          100%

The 1968 Redemption

      As he approached age 70, Mickey developed a plan to retire gradually from

active involvement in NAI’s operations. To implement this plan, he decided to

transfer a portion of his common stock to his grandchildren and to exchange the

balance of his shares for preferred stock.

      On May 6, 1968, Mickey as settlor executed an agreement of trust for the

benefit of his four grandchildren (Grandchildren’s Trust). The three trustees were

Belle, Edward, and Sumner. That same day, Mickey transferred 50 shares of NAI

common stock to the Grandchildren’s Trust. His accountants at J.K. Lasser &

Company (J.K. Lasser) prepared and filed on his behalf a timely Federal gift tax

return valuing these shares at $564,075, and Mickey paid the resulting gift tax due.
                                          -6-

[*6] Belle likewise filed a Federal gift tax return consenting to have Mickey’s gift

treated as having been made one-half by her.

      Mickey then exchanged his remaining 50 shares of NAI common stock for

preferred stock. In December 1968 NAI’s charter was amended to provide for a

class of preferred stock, and in March 1969 Mickey’s 50 shares of common stock

were redeemed in exchange for 86,780 shares of NAI preferred stock. Thus, as of

March 31, 1969, NAI had outstanding 250 shares of voting common stock that

were owned by Sumner (100 shares), Edward (100 shares), and the Grand-

children’s Trust (50 shares).

1971 Dispute

      As time went on Edward became increasingly dissatisfied with his role at

NAI and with certain decisions that Mickey and Sumner had made. Also during

this period, one of Edward’s children was experiencing serious problems that were

a source of frustration and distraction to him. For a variety of reasons, he decided

in June 1971 to terminate his employment with NAI.

      Upon leaving, Edward demanded but did not receive possession of the 100

shares of common stock registered in his name. To help secure possession of

these shares, Edward hired attorney James R. DeGiacomo. Edward took the posi-

tion that he was legally entitled to, and had an unrestricted right to sell, the shares
                                        -7-

[*7] registered in his name. He threatened to sell the shares to an outsider if NAI

did not redeem them at an appropriate price.

      Edward’s threat to sell his shares to an outsider was anathema to Mickey

and Sumner because they wished to keep control of the Redstone businesses

within the family. Mickey refused to give Edward his stock certificates, contend-

ing that NAI had a right of first refusal to repurchase the shares. Mickey and his

attorneys also developed an argument that a portion of Edward’s stock, though

registered in his name, had actually been held since NAI’s inception in an “oral

trust” for the benefit of Edward’s children. This argument built on the fact that

Mickey in 1959 had contributed 48% of NAI’s capital yet had received only

33.33% of its stock. In effect, Mickey contended that he had gratuitously

accorded Edward more stock than he was entitled to, and that, to effectuate

Mickey’s intent in 1959, the “extra” shares should be regarded as being held in

trust for Edward’s children. Mickey took the position that at least half of

Edward’s shares were covered by this alleged oral trust.

      The parties negotiated for six months in search of a resolution. They ex-

plored, without success, various options whereby Edward would remain in the

business as an employee or consultant. Edward offered to sell his 100 shares back

to NAI, and the parties explored various pricing scenarios under which this might
                                         -8-

[*8] occur. As the family patriarch, however, Mickey had most of the leverage,

and he insisted that Edward acknowledge the existence of an oral trust for the

benefit of Edward’s two children. Mickey’s insistence on an oral trust was a “line

in the sand” and a “deal breaker.”

      Upon reaching an impasse, Edward authorized Mr. DeGiacomo to file in

Massachusetts Superior Court two lawsuits against Mickey, Sumner, and the Red-

stone family companies: Redstone v. Nat’l Amusements, Inc., No. 94575 EQ (NAI

Action), and Redstone v. Northeast Theatre Com., No. 94576 EQ (Northeast

Action). The NAI Action, filed in December 1971, alleged that Edward owned 100

shares of voting common stock, that these shares were “unencumbered and

unrestricted as to their transferability,” and that the 100 shares should be delivered

immediately to Edward. Mickey answered that he had possession of all the stock

registered in Edward’s name and that a portion of the shares so registered were

“held in trust for the benefit of * * * [Edward’s] children.”

      This litigation became quite adversarial, and its public nature was extremely

distressing to the Redstone family, especially Mickey’s wife, Belle. She implored

Edward to reach some accommodation with his father. In the course of negotia-

tions, it became apparent to Mr. DeGiacomo that Edward had to separate com-
                                         -9-

[*9] pletely from NAI and that Mickey would not be satisfied unless some of

Edward’s disputed shares were placed in trust for his children, Michael and Ruth

Ann.

       A settlement was ultimately reached along these lines. Notwithstanding that

100 shares of NAI voting common stock were registered in Edward’s name, the

parties agreed that Edward was the owner “free and clear of all trusts, restrictions

and encumbrances” of only 66 2/3 shares of such stock. They further agreed that

the remaining 33 1/3 shares of NAI stock registered in Edward’s name were then

held, and had always been held by Edward, “for the benefit of his children * * * in

trust and not as beneficial owner.” This settlement was a compromise of the par-

ties’ respective positions. It reflected, on the one hand, Mickey’s desire to ensure

the financial security of Edward’s children and, on the other hand, Edward’s desire

to conclude the litigation by securing payment for at least some of his shares.

       The settlement agreement dated June 30, 1972 (Settlement Agreement) pro-

vided that NAI would repurchase the 66 2/3 shares of stock that Edward was

deemed to own. The parties agreed that Edward’s 66 2/3 shares were to be valued

at $5 million and that a redemption agreement would be executed simultaneously.

Edward and NAI executed the Redemption Agreement, which provided that the $5

million purchase price would be paid as 44 quarterly installments of $125,000
                                        - 10 -

[*10] (including principal and interest), plus a final payment of all principal and

interest then remaining due. NAI executed an installment note that bore interest at

the “floating prime rate” charged by the Boston bank from which NAI had obtained

most of its financing. In exchange for this stream of payments, Edward executed

an assignment transferring 66 2/3 shares of voting common stock to NAI.

      The Settlement Agreement required Edward to execute irrevocable declara-

tions of trust, likewise dated June 30, 1972, for the benefit of his children. These

trusts were styled the Ruth Ann Redstone Trust (Ruth Ann Trust) and the Michael

David Redstone Trust (Michael Trust). Sumner was named the sole trustee of each

trust. Edward executed two assignments, each transferring 16 2/3 shares of NAI

stock to Sumner as trustee of the respective trusts.

      Finally, the Settlement Agreement required the parties to execute various

releases. All parties executed mutual releases respecting claims concerning Ed-

ward’s ownership interests in NAI and Northeast. Edward resigned from all posi-

tions he had held in the Redstone family businesses and resigned as trustee (or re-

linquished the right to serve as successor trustee) of all Redstone family trusts. The

Settlement Agreement also resolved certain disputes in the Northeast Action that

are not relevant here.
                                        - 11 -

[*11] On July 19, 1972, the parties filed with the Massachusetts Superior Court a

Stipulation in the NAI Action setting forth the terms of this settlement. That same

day, the Massachusetts Superior Court issued a Final Decree incorporating the

terms of the Settlement Agreement as set forth in the Stipulation.

Sumner’s Transfer of Stock to Trusts for His Children

      On July 21, 1972, three weeks after the Settlement Agreement was signed,

Sumner executed irrevocable declarations of trust for the benefit of his two chil-

dren. These trusts were styled the Brent Dale Redstone Trust (Brent Trust) and the

Shari Ellin Redstone Trust (Shari Trust). Sumner was named the sole trustee of

each trust. That same day, 16 2/3 of the NAI shares originally registered in Sum-

ner’s name were re-issued to the Brent Trust; 16 2/3 shares were re-issued to the

Shari Trust; and the remaining 66 2/3 shares were re-issued to Sumner. Neither

Sumner nor his wife filed a gift tax return for the calendar quarter ending Septem-

ber 30, 1972.

      Sumner’s transfers of NAI stock to the Brent and Shari Trusts were volun-

tary. Each transfer was motivated by donative intent toward the natural objects of

Sumner’s affection. By creating these trusts and transferring 33 1/3 shares of NAI

stock to them, Sumner made a gesture of goodwill toward his father, who desired to

ensure the financial security of his four grandchildren on equal terms. However,
                                        - 12 -

[*12] Sumner was not required to take these actions by the Settlement Agreement

that resolved Edward’s lawsuits. The only obligation that the Settlement

Agreement imposed on Sumner was the requirement that he execute certain

releases in consideration of mutual releases executed by the other contracting

parties.

       The Brent and Shari Trusts, like the Ruth Ann and Michael Trusts, recite that

the stock transferred to them had been held “under an oral trust” since 1959. Peti-

tioner presented no evidence that any “oral trust” actually existed whereby Edward

or Sumner held in trust for his children a portion of the NAI shares initially regis-

tered in his name. Rather, the concept of an “oral trust” developed later and was

agreed upon as a mechanism for settling Edward’s litigation and implementing

Mickey’s desire to ensure the financial security of Edward’s children.

1984 Redemption

       On March 8, 1984, NAI redeemed the 83 1/3 shares held collectively by the

Grandchildren’s Trust (50 shares), the Ruth Ann Trust (16 2/3 shares), and the

Michael Trust (16 2/3 shares). The aggregate redemption price was $21,428,571,

or approximately $257,143 per share. Following this redemption, NAI had

outstanding only 100 shares of voting common stock. These shares were owned by
                                         - 13 -

[*13] Sumner individually (66 2/3 shares) and by the two Trusts for his children

(33 1/3 shares), of which he was the sole trustee.

The O’Connor Litigation

      Litigation commenced in 2006 sheds further light on the events involved in

this case. See O’Connor v. Redstone, 896 N.E.2d 595 (Mass. 2008). Michael

Redstone and the trustees of certain Redstone family trusts sued Sumner, Edward,

and NAI, advancing two major contentions. First, they alleged that Sumner in

1984 had improperly caused NAI to redeem, for less than fair market value, the

shares held by the Ruth Ann Trust, the Michael Trust, and the Grandchildren’s

Trust. The Massachusetts Supreme Court eventually held that this claim was time

barred. See id. at 616. Second, the plaintiffs alleged that, in 1972, additional stock

should have been transferred to the various Trusts based on the purported existence

of a prior “oral trust.” The “oral trust” issue was the subject of extensive deposi-

tion and trial testimony.3 The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to

prove that an oral trust was ever created. O’Connor v. Redstone, No. 2006-4606

(Mass. Sup. Ct. Nov. 25, 2009).




      3
        The trial transcript of the O’Connor litigation and the transcripts of certain
depositions are included among the exhibits to the parties’ stipulation of facts in
the instant case.
                                           - 14 -

[*14] In deposition and at trial of the O’Connor case, Sumner testified that he had

transferred the 33 1/3 shares of NAI stock to the Brent and Shari Trusts voluntarily.

At his deposition, he explained that he “voluntarily went through the same proce-

dure” as his brother and “gave * * * [his] own children” the stock. While it was

Mickey’s position “that at least 50 percent” of Edward’s shares were held for

Edward’s children, Sumner testified that Mickey had never expressed the same re-

servation regarding Sumner’s own shares. He continued: “I voluntarily set up an

arrangement--call it what you will--where my own children would get a third of the

stock. * * * I wanted to do the same thing that my brother did, only he did it as a

result of litigation. I did it voluntarily.”

       At trial in the O’Connor case Sumner maintained the same position: “No-

body sued me. I gave my kids a third of the stock voluntarily, not as the result of a

lawsuit. In [s]o doing, I did what I wanted and appeased my father too.” He testi-

fied that “[t]here was a big difference between Eddie’s position and mine” because

Edward “was resisting doing what my father wanted,” whereas Sumner was simply

trying to maintain good family relations. He later testified to the same effect:

“Eddie was sued. I was not. And Eddie had to find a justification for what he was

doing in transferring. I wasn’t sued. I just made an outright gift.”
                                        - 15 -

[*15] Contemporaneous Tax Advice

      During the 1960s Samuel Rosen was a partner at J.K. Lasser, and Peter Isen-

berg was a certified public accountant there. (J.K. Lasser subsequently merged

with Touche Ross & Co., now Deloitte.) After the 1972 transaction, Messrs. Rosen

and Isenberg formed their own firm (Rosen PC) through which Mr. Rosen served

as the Redstone family accountant. He worked for Sumner and NAI before the

1972 transactions and continued to do so for many years afterwards. Mr. Isenberg

described Mr. Rosen, who was deceased at the time of trial, as a knowledgeable

and careful professional who always endeavored to get the right answer.

      Sumner sought and received advice from Mr. Rosen about the tax conse-

quences of his transfer of stock to the Brent and Shari Trusts. Mr. Isenberg

credibly testified: (1) that Mr. Rosen had obtained advice from J.K. Lasser’s

national office about this transaction; (2) that this advice was memorialized in a

letter or memorandum which concluded that Sumner was not required to file a gift

tax return because he had made no taxable gift; and (3) that Mr. Rosen, who was

thoroughly familiar with the 1971 litigation and its aftermath, expressed his agree-

ment with J.K. Lasser’s conclusion.4 Mr. Isenberg personally handled petitioner’s

      4
       Mr. Isenberg was unable to locate a copy of the advice document from J.K.
Lasser’s national office. The Court found this unsurprising because that document
                                                                      (continued...)
                                         - 16 -

[*16] income and gift tax filings. He credibly testified that if J.K. Lasser had

believed a gift tax return was due for the quarter ending September 30, 1972, a

return would have been filed.

      The tax consequences of Sumner’s 1972 transfer were likewise addressed

during the O’Connor litigation. Mr. DeGiacomo testified in deposition that J.K.

Lasser provided a tax opinion for the transaction. Sumner testified that Mr. Rosen

“would have made the determination” whether a gift tax return was required to be

filed. “If there were a gift tax due and gift tax return, it would have been filed. If

there was a gift tax * * * due, it would have been paid.” Consistently with that

previous testimony, Sumner testified in the instant case that he had relied on his ac-

countants and lawyers to determine whether gift tax had to be paid in 1972 and

“[t]hey apparently concluded that there was no tax due.”

      Sumner has filed 34 Federal gift tax returns during the course of his life. He

filed the first such return in 1970; the next two in 1980; and 32 additional returns

for various periods between 1982 and 2012, all reporting taxable gifts. On the

basis of the advice he received from Mr. Rosen and J.K. Lasser, however, Sumner

did not file a Federal gift tax return for the quarter ending September 30, 1972.

      4
        (...continued)
would have been drafted 43 years ago. Mr. Isenberg credibly testified that he re-
called seeing this document contemporaneously with the events in question.
                                        - 17 -

[*17] IRS Scrutiny of Petitioner

      During 1974, in the wake of the Watergate investigation, the IRS initiated

what was called the Political Campaign Contribution Compliance Project (Compli-

ance Project). A Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities had

expressed concern that some donors might be evading the law by making dona-

tions, in amounts smaller than the $3,000 annual gift tax exclusion, to multiple

campaign committees that were nominally separate but in fact supported the same

candidate. Congress asked the IRS to investigate these concerns. The Compliance

Project sought to determine whether transfers of this type involved taxable “gifts”

for Federal gift tax purposes.

      The Senate Select Committee provided the IRS with lists of contributions

that were to be reviewed. Sumner’s name appeared on a list of 12 to 14 contri-

butors in the North Atlantic region who had made political contributions during

1970-1972; this list was assigned to IRS Revenue Agent Corbett for review. Agent

Corbett testified that the scope of his review was limited to the political campaign

contributions made by these individuals. He was unsure whether he technically

had authority, under the scope of the Compliance Project, to investigate other gift

tax issues that might have come to his attention.
                                        - 18 -

[*18] In April 1975 Agent Corbett mailed Sumner a letter captioned “Possible

1971 and 1972 Gift Tax Liability.” The letter asked Sumner to identify all trans-

fers he had made to political committees during 1970-1972 and to provide copies

of canceled checks documenting any such transfers. Sumner promptly provided the

requested documentation, including schedules of his transfers to political com-

mittees during 1970-1972, copies of all relevant cancelled checks, and copies of

promissory notes he had received for two loans executed in 1971. On the basis of

this information the IRS concluded that “there was no necessity to solicit a gift tax

return for 1972.”

      In 2010, apparently as a result of the O’Connor litigation, Sumner’s 1972

transfer of stock to the Brent and Shari Trusts came to the IRS’ attention. It ac-

cordingly commenced, in May 2011, a gift tax examination covering petitioner’s

1972 calendar year. IRS Revenue Agent Cha was assigned to conduct this exami-

nation. The focus of his examination was petitioner’s potential gift tax liability

related to the 1972 stock transfer. Agent Cha was not aware, when conducting this

examination, that the IRS had performed an earlier review of Sumner’s 1972 poli-

tical campaign contributions.

      Agent Cha’s examination lasted more than a year. On several occasions, he

requested documents that the IRS did not possess, and Sumner through his attor-
                                        - 19 -

[*19] neys complied with each of these document requests. Sumner did not

complain, at any time during the audit, of a potential “second examination” in

violation of section 7605(b). He first raised the possibility of a “second

examination” in early 2014, nearly a year after the IRS had issued the notice of

deficiency. That notice was issued on January 11, 2013, and Sumner timely

petitioned this Court on April 10, 2013.

Expert Valuation Testimony

      At trial respondent offered, and the Court recognized, Steven C. Hastings as

an expert in valuing closely held companies and stock interests in closely held

companies. Mr. Hastings relied principally on a “mergers and acquisitions” ap-

proach. Employing this method, he valued the 33 1/3 shares of NAI stock that

Sumner transferred on July 21, 1972, principally by reference to the price at which

NAI had redeemed Edward’s 66 2/3 shares three weeks previously.

      In Mr. Hastings’ opinion, the $5 million redemption price that NAI agreed to

pay Edward was negotiated at arm’s length, was essentially contemporaneous with

Sumner’s transfer, and yielded a value of $75,000 per NAI common share. Mr.

Hastings opined that NAI’s redemption of Edward’s shares “was a private trans-

action for a minority interest” and that the redemption price thus established the

per-share value of NAI’s common stock “on a minority, non-marketable interest
                                       - 20 -

[*20] basis.” Mr. Hastings accordingly concluded that the 33 1/3 shares that

Sumner transferred to his children’s Trusts in July 1972 were worth $2.5 million

(33 1/3 x $75,000).

      Mr. Hastings also valued the transferred shares using the “direct capitaliza-

tion” and “guideline public company” methods. In performing these valuations,

Mr. Hastings concluded that a discount for lack of marketability was necessary; he

determined the appropriate discount to be 34%. Applying this discount, he deter-

mined values for the 33 1/3 shares of $2,433,608 and $2,997,054, respectively.

      Petitioner offered, and the Court recognized, Gordon Klein as an expert in

the field of business valuations. He determined the value of the transferred shares

using the so-called engrafting method. As his starting point for valuing the NAI

shares that Sumner transferred in July 1972, Mr. Klein used the per-share price,

$257,143, that NAI paid to redeem the Trusts’ shares in March 1984. He computed

ratios between the 1984 redemption price and (1) NAI’s average net income for

1981-1983 and (2) the book value of NAI’s common shareholders’ equity in 1984.

He then “applied these same ratios to comparable NAI data existing at or about the

time” of Sumner’s transfer. On the basis of these ratios, Mr. Klein concluded that

the 33 1/3 shares that Sumner transferred to his children’s Trusts in July 1972 were

worth $735,981 (33 1/3 x $22,079).
                                           - 21 -

[*21]                                   OPINION

I.      Threshold Issues

        A.    Burden of Proof

        The Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of deficiency are generally

presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving those determina-

tions erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).

Petitioner does not contend that the burden of proof shifts to respondent under

section 7491(a) as to any issue of fact.

        B.    Period of Limitations

        Section 6501(c)(3) provides that, “[i]n the case of failure to file a return, the

tax may be assessed * * * at any time.” Sumner did not file a Federal gift tax return

reporting the 1972 transfer of stock to the children’s Trusts. The notice of defi-

ciency, though issued 41 years after the transfer, was thus timely. See Estate of

Brown v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-50, at *8-*9. See generally Estate of

Sanders v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-100, at *5.

        Petitioner moved before trial for judgment on the pleadings. Admitting that

the period of limitations on assessment was “technically still open,” he contended

that respondent was barred by laches from determining in 2013 a gift tax deficiency

for the third quarter of 1972. Petitioner noted that he is “now 90 years old; material
                                         - 22 -

[*22] witnesses have been dead for decades; documents have long since been

discarded or have disintegrated; memories have unquestionably eroded.” Under

these circumstances, petitioner described this case as involving “an unprecedented

abuse * * * of the rule that no statute of limitations applies.”

      We denied this motion by order dated December 5, 2013, concluding as

follows:

             It is well settled that the United States is not subject to the
      defense of laches in enforcing its rights. See United States v. Sum-
      merlin, 310 U.S. 414, 416 (1940); Guaranty Trust Co. v. United
      States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938); United States v. Menatos, 925 F.2d 333,
      335 (9th Cir. 1991); Wright v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-5, 89
      T.C.M. (CCH) 662, 666. The inapplicability of the laches doctrine is
      especially clear where (as here) the Government seeks to enforce tax
      claims that are governed by an express statute of limitations. In such
      cases, the “timeliness of Government claims is governed by the sta-
      tute of limitations enacted by Congress.” Fein v. United States, 22
      F.3d 631, 634 (5th Cir. 1994). Accord Kohler v. Commissioner, T.C.
      Memo. 2008-127, 95 T.C.M. (CCH) 1494, 1496-97; Wright v. Com-
      missioner, 89 T.C.M. at 666.

      A party asserting laches must establish certain facts. If this equitable defense

were available to petitioner, he would need to demonstrate (for example) that the

IRS was aware of the 1972 gifts but sat on its rights and that petitioner suffered

“undue prejudice” as a result. See, e.g., Fridovich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2001-32, 81 T.C.M. (CCH) 1143, 1146. Petitioner made no effort to establish such

facts at trial. Quite the contrary: the evidence indicated that the IRS did not be-
                                         - 23 -

[*23] come aware of the 1972 transfers until 2010, after the O’Connor litigation

had ended, and respondent commenced his gift tax examination reasonably

promptly thereafter. In any event, petitioner did not advance arguments based on

laches or other equitable defenses in his pretrial memorandum or in his post-trial

briefs. See Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 312-313 (2003) (holding that

arguments not addressed in post-trial brief may be considered abandoned).

      C.     Second Examination

      Section 7605(b) provides that a taxpayer shall not be subjected to “unneces-

sary examination or investigations, and only one inspection of a taxpayer’s books

of account shall be made for each taxable year unless the taxpayer requests other-

wise or unless the Secretary, after investigation, notifies the taxpayer in writing that

an additional inspection is necessary.” Congress enacted section 7605(b) to protect

taxpayers from harassment by “low-echelon revenue agents * * * by requiring such

agents to clear any repetitive examination with a superior.” United States v.

Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 55-56 (1964). “There is no intimation in the legislative his-

tory [of section 7605(b)] that Congress intended the courts to oversee the Commis-

sioner’s determinations to investigate.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit, to which an appeal in this case would lie absent stipulation to the contrary,

has accordingly “issued strong admonitions against an expansive reading of section
                                         - 24 -

[*24] 7605(b).” Curtis v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1349, 1352 (1985) (citing De-

Masters v. Arend, 313 F.2d 79, 87 (9th Cir. 1963)).

      Petitioner contends that the “deficiency should be set aside because respon-

dent * * * violated the ‘one examination’ rule of section 7605(b).” According to

petitioner, the review performed by Agent Corbett in 1975 pursuant to the Com-

pliance Project constituted an “inspection of * * * [petitioner’s] books of account,”

with the supposed result that the 2011-2013 gift tax examination was an imper-

missible “second inspection” under section 7605(b). By way of remedy, petitioner

urges that we follow the analysis in Reineman v. United States, 301 F.2d 267 (7th

Cir. 1962), and set aside the gift tax deficiency in its entirety. We decline to do so.

      At the outset, it is far from clear that Agent Corbett’s 1975 review consti-

tuted an “inspection of [the] taxpayer’s books of account” within the meaning of

section 7605(b). “To inspect the ‘books of account’ would require, at a minimum,

that the respondent have access to and physically view a taxpayer’s books and re-

cords.” Benjamin v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 1084, 1098 (1976), aff’d, 592 F.2d

1259 (5th Cir. 1979). The IRS has long taken the position that narrow, limited con-

tacts between the IRS and taxpayers, such as “compliance checks” and “compliance

initiative projects,” do not constitute “examinations.” See Rev. Proc. 2005-32,

2005-1 C.B. 1206, 1207; Rev. Proc. 94-68, 1994-2 C.B. 803; Internal Revenue
                                         - 25 -

[*25] Manual (IRM) pt. 4.23.3.6 (Jan. 25, 2011) (compliance checks); IRM pt.

4.17.1.2(3) (Feb. 25, 2010) (compliance initiative projects). Compliance initiative

projects involve “contact with specific taxpayers and collection of taxpayer data

within a group, using either internal or external data to identify potential areas of

noncompliance within the group, for the purpose of correcting the non-compli-

ance.” IRM pt. 4.17.1.2(3); see Michael Saltzman, IRS Practice and Procedure

para. 8.08[3], at 8-69 (July 13, 2013) (“Compliance checks are one specific type of

contact not considered by the Service to be an examination[.]”).

      Agent Corbett contacted petitioner in 1975 as part of the Compliance Pro-

ject, which the IRS undertook at the request of the Senate Select Committee. The

purpose of this project was to determine the extent to which taxpayers were making

political contributions that did not comply with rules governing the annual gift tax

exclusion. Agent Corbett focused solely on this issue; he exchanged two letters

with petitioner and, after receiving copies of cancelled checks and two promissory

notes, was satisfied that petitioner was in compliance. Respondent contends that

Agent Corbett’s contact, given its limited nature, did not amount to an “exami-

nation” of petitioner’s books of account. Cf. Ellis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2007-207, 94 T.C.M. (CCH) 112, 116 (holding that IRS letter requesting specific,

limited information was not an “examination” even though the taxpayer furnished
                                        - 26 -

[*26] copies of records in response), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds,

346 F. App’x 346 (10th Cir. 2009).

      Even if the 2011-2013 examination constituted a “second inspection,” it is

far from clear that the remedy would be to expunge the gift tax deficiency that the

IRS determined during this examination. The purpose of section 7605(b) is to re-

lieve the taxpayer from unnecessary annoyance, not from payment of taxes legally

owed. The IRS is free to conduct a second examination so long as it “notifies the

taxpayer in writing that an additional inspection is necessary.” Sec. 7605(b). To

invalidate a notice of deficiency because the IRS neglected to send this explanatory

letter would “substantially overshoot the goal which the legislators sought to at-

tain.” United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. at 55. Accordingly, “[i]t has long been

established by this Court and others that failure of the Commissioner to comply

with the provisions of section 7605(b) * * * does not invalidate a deficiency deter-

mined from information derived from such an examination.” Flynn v. Commis-

sioner, 40 T.C. 770, 774 (1963). But see Reineman, 301 F.2d at 272. If the

taxpayer objects to an IRS contact as an impermissible “second examination,” he

may “refuse to permit the examination and, should the Service seek enforcement of

a summons, oppose the application for enforcement.” Saltzman, supra, para.

13.02[5], Westlaw (2013).
                                         - 27 -

[*27] In any event, it is well settled that “if a taxpayer fails to object to a reexami-

nation or second inspection or voluntarily consents to one, he waives any rights

conferred by section 7605(b).” Id. As we noted soon after the predecessor of

section 7605(b) was enacted: “He might have refused to permit the investigation

without notice in writing [from the IRS], but not having done so the protection

afforded by the statute will be deemed to have been waived.” Estate of Barker v.

Commissioner, 13 B.T.A. 562, 566 (1928); accord, e.g., Moloney v. United States,

521 F.2d 491, 501 (6th Cir. 1975); United States v. O’Connor, 237 F.2d 466, 476-

477 (2d Cir. 1956); Credit Bureau of Erie, Inc. v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 726, 729

(1970); Flynn v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. at 774; Philip Mangone Co. v. United

States, 54 F.2d 168, 172 (Ct. Cl. 1931).

      Agent Cha began his gift tax examination in 2011, and it lasted for more than

a year. He requested documents from petitioner on several occasions, and petition-

er through his lawyers complied with each such request. Petitioner did not com-

plain at any time during the audit of a potential “second examination” in violation

of section 7605(b). He first raised this issue in early 2014, nearly a year after the

IRS had mailed the notice of deficiency on which this case is based. Under these

circumstances, we conclude that petitioner consented to the 2011-2013 exami-

nation and thus waived any rights that section 7605(b) might have afforded him.
                                         - 28 -

[*28] We thus find it unnecessary to decide whether Agent Cha’s examination was

in fact a “second inspection” of petitioner’s books of account or what remedy

would be available to him if that question were answered in the affirmative.

II.   Application of Gift Tax

      A.     Governing Legal Principles

      During 1972 the gift tax was imposed for each calendar quarter “on the

transfer of property by gift” during that quarter. Sec. 2501(a)(1). “Where property

is transferred for less than an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s

worth, then the amount by which the value of the property exceeded the value of

the consideration shall be deemed a gift.” Sec. 2512(b). A necessary corollary of

this provision is that a transfer of property in exchange for “an adequate and full

consideration” does not constitute a “gift” for Federal gift tax purposes. See, e.g.,

Commissioner v. Wemyss, 324 U.S. 303 (1945). The regulations confirm that

“[t]he gift tax is not applicable to a transfer for a full and adequate consideration in

money or money’s worth, or to ordinary business transactions.” Sec. 25.2511-

1(g)(1), Gift Tax Regs.

      The regulations define a “transfer of property made in the ordinary course of

business” as “a transaction which is bona fide, at arm’s length, and free from any

donative intent.” Sec. 25.2512-8, Gift Tax Regs.; see Weller v. Commissioner, 38
                                        - 29 -

[*29] T.C. 790, 806 (1962). A transaction meeting this standard “will be

considered as made for an adequate and full consideration in money or money’s

worth.” Sec. 25.2512-8, Gift Tax Regs. A transfer of property within a family

group normally receives close scrutiny. See, e.g., Frazee v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.

554, 561 (1992). However, a transaction between family members may be treated

as one “in the ordinary course of business” if it constitutes an arm’s-length transfer

of property in settlement of a genuine dispute or otherwise meets the criteria set

forth above. See Stern v. United States, 436 F.2d 1327, 1330 (5th Cir. 1971);

Rosenthal v. Commissioner, 205 F.2d 505, 509 (2d Cir. 1953), rev’g 17 T.C. 1047

(1951); Estate of Friedman v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 714 (1963); Beveridge v.

Commissioner, 10 T.C. 915, 917-918 (1948); Estate of Anderson v. Commissioner,

8 T.C. 706, 720 (1947).

      B.     Sumner’s Transfer as a “Gift”

      In Estate of Redstone v. Commissioner, 145 T.C. __, __ (slip op. at 31) (Oct.

26, 2015), we held that Edward’s June 1972 transfer of stock to his children pur-

suant to the Settlement Agreement was not a gift but was a “transfer of property

made in the ordinary course of business.” Sec. 25.2512-8, Gift Tax Regs. We

found that a genuine dispute existed concerning Edward’s ownership of NAI stock

and that he was forced to relinquish his claim to ownership of 33 1/3 shares in
                                        - 30 -

[*30] order to obtain from Mickey and Sumner an acknowledgment of his

ownership of the remaining 66 2/3 shares. We held that Edward’s transfer of the

disputed shares to trusts for his children, at Mickey’s insistence, was thus made for

a “full and adequate consideration in money or money’s worth.” Estate of

Redstone v. Commissioner, 145 T.C. at __ (slip op. at 31) (citing section 25.2512-

8, Gift Tax Regs.).

      Three weeks after Edward’s litigation was settled, Sumner likewise trans-

ferred 33 1/3 NAI shares to trusts for his own children. In contending that this

transfer should also be exempt from gift tax, Sumner seeks to portray it as part of

the overall reconfiguration of stock ownership by which the parties brought Ed-

ward’s litigation to a close. “But for the litigation with Edward and the settlement

reached by the parties,” Sumner submits that he would not have established trusts

for his children in July 1972. “By creating trusts he otherwise would not have

established at the time,” Sumner allegedly “facilitated the settlement of his

brother’s litigation,” “appeased his father,” and “poised himself to become NAI’s

majority shareholder.” He accordingly contends that his transfer, like Edward’s,

was “made in the ordinary course of business” and for “an adequate and full

consideration in money or money’s worth.” Sec. 25.2512-8, Gift Tax Regs.
                                        - 31 -

[*31] We do not find this argument persuasive. There is no evidence that any dis-

pute existed in 1971-1972 concerning ownership of Sumner’s stock or that Mickey

was determined to withhold any of Sumner’s shares from him. To the contrary:

the evidence showed that Mickey and Sumner were working in concert to drive Ed-

ward out of the company and that the “oral trust” theory was a weapon they de-

ployed against Edward in an effort to achieve that goal. Because no demand was

ever placed on Sumner’s shares, no negotiations ever occurred concerning his

ownership of those shares. Sumner never filed a lawsuit, and he received no

release of claims from Mickey (or anyone else) upon transferring his stock.

      We likewise discern no convincing evidence that Sumner’s transfer “facili-

tated the settlement of his brother’s litigation.” The Settlement Agreement had

been finally executed three weeks before Sumner made his transfer. The Settle-

ment Agreement does not mention any prospective transfer of stock by Sumner,

and there is no documentary evidence that his promise to make such a transfer was

a condition precedent to the Settlement Agreement. By its terms, the Settlement

Agreement imposed no obligations on Sumner except that he execute releases in

exchange for reciprocal releases from each of the other parties.5

      5
        In contending that Edward’s litigation “was resolved by both Edward and
* * * [Sumner] agreeing to transfer 16 2/3 shares of NAI stock to each of their
                                                                      (continued...)
                                        - 32 -

[*32] Petitioner’s transfer of stock to his children was undoubtedly prompted by

the Settlement Agreement, both as to its timing and its terms, and this transfer

surely pleased Mickey by ensuring the financial security of his four grandchildren

on equal terms. But this is not enough to make it a transaction “in the ordinary

course of business.” Pleasing parents, like pleasing children, is presumptively a

family motivation, and we discern no evidence tending to rebut that presumption

here. There was no claim against Sumner; there were no arm’s-length negotiations;

and he received no consideration from anyone in exchange for his transfer.

      In transferring stock to the Brent and Shari Trusts, Sumner was essentially

motivated by the kinship that he had with his father and his children. Sumner was

the sole trustee of both his children’s Trusts; there is no evidence that he was

      5
        (...continued)
children,” petitioner relies on a statement in a 2004 deposition by Mr. DiGiacomo.
When asked to explain how the 1971-1972 dispute was resolved, he stated: “It
was resolved by Eddie being deemed the owner of two-thirds of the shares. That
is my best recollection. And the other one-third was to be divided between
Michael and Ruth Ann. And their shares were held under a trust. Eddie’s shares
were redeemed by the corporation, and I believe the same applied to Sumner. In
other words, Sumner’s children had the same proportionate ownership, and that’s
how the matter was resolved.” Mr. DiGiacomo noted in his 2004 deposition that
he was providing a high-level summary of distant events of which he had imper-
fect recollection: “[T]his matter goes back awhile, looking at the file this morning,
some of it comes back to me, but without having looked at the file, it would not
have.” Neither Sumner, Mr. DiGiacomo, nor any other witness in the instant case
testified that a promise by Sumner to transfer stock to the Brent and Shari Trusts
was a condition precedent to execution of the Settlement Agreement.
                                            - 33 -

[*33] reluctant to effect this transfer or that it disadvantaged him from a business

perspective.6 The transfer thus bears all the indicia of donative intent toward the

natural objects of his affection.

      Sumner’s testimony in the O’Connor case firmly supports these conclusions.

He testified repeatedly, both in deposition and at trial, that his 1972 transfer of

stock was completely voluntary. He stated that he “voluntarily went through the

same procedure” as his brother and “gave * * * [his] own children” the stock. He

explained: “I wanted to do the same thing that my brother did, only he did it as a

result of litigation. I did it voluntarily.” He testified similarly at trial: “I gave my

kids a third of the stock voluntarily, not as a result of a lawsuit. In [s]o doing, I did

what I wanted and appeased my father too.” He emphasized that his shares, unlike

Edward’s, were “unencumbered” by any litigation claims: “Eddie was sued. I was

not. * * * I just made an outright gift.”

      We find that Sumner’s 1972 transfer of stock to the Brent and Shari Trusts

was “actuated by love and affection.” Cf. Beveridge, 10 T.C. at 918; Estate of


      6
        By contrast, Edward was clearly reluctant to transfer stock to his own
children’s Trusts; for one thing, Sumner, rather than he, was the sole trustee of
those Trusts. Both economic and family reasons motivated Edward to insist on
securing outright ownership of (or payment for) all 100 shares that were originally
registered in his name. See Estate of Redstone, 145 T.C. at __ (slip op. at 25 &
n.5).
                                         - 34 -

[*34] Noland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-209, 47 T.C.M. (CCH) 1640,

1644-1645. His transfer was animated by donative intent and was not a transaction

“made in the ordinary course of business” within the meaning of section 25.2512-8,

Gift Tax Regs. It was therefore a taxable gift for Federal gift tax purposes.7

      C.     Valuation

      “If the gift is made in property, the value thereof at the date of the gift shall

be considered the amount of the gift.” Sec. 2512. The fair market value of

property is the price at which it would change hands between a willing buyer and a

willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having

reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. Sec. 25.2512-1, Gift Tax Regs.; see Rev.

Rul. 59-60, 1959-1 C.B. 237. The valuation of property is a question of fact. See

Tallichet v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1974-255.

      In valuing shares of a closely held corporation, “actual arm’s-length sales of

such stock in the normal course of business within a reasonable time before or after


      7
        Petitioner contends that his transfer was made in the ordinary course of
business because he thereby “poised himself to become NAI’s majority share-
holder.” But Sumner had already become NAI’s majority shareholder as a result
of the Settlement Agreement; his decision three weeks later to transfer 33 1/3 of
his 100 shares to his children’s Trusts did nothing to enhance his majority posi-
tion. This transfer could be deemed causally related to his achievement of majori-
ty status only if it were a condition precedent to execution of the Settlement
Agreement. As explained in the text, we find no convincing evidence that it was.
                                       - 35 -

[*35] the valuation date are the best criteria of market value.” Estate of Andrews v.

Commissioner, 79 T.C. 938, 940 (1982). Where actual sale prices are unavailable,

stock may be valued by reference to “the company’s net worth, prospective earning

power and dividend-paying capacity, and other relevant factors.” Sec. 25.2512-

2(f), Gift Tax Regs. These factors cannot be applied with mathematical precision;

the weight given various factors depends on the particular facts of each case.

Estate of Andrews, 79 T.C. at 940-941.

      In deciding valuation issues we may consider the opinions of expert wit-

nesses properly admitted into evidence. Helvering v. Nat’l Grocery Co., 304 U.S.

282, 295 (1938). If we find one expert’s opinion persuasive in its entirety, we may

accept his opinion in preference to the opposing expert’s. See Buffalo Tool & Die

Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 441, 452 (1980). Alternatively, we may reach

“an intermediate conclusion as to value” by drawing selectively from the testimony

of various experts. Parker v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 547, 562 (1986).

      1.    Petitioner’s Expert

      Employing the so-called engrafting method, Mr. Klein valued the shares

petitioner transferred in July 1972 by reference to the price NAI paid to redeem the

Trusts’ shares in March 1984. Since value is determined as of a specific date,

“[o]nly facts reasonably known at the valuation date may serve as the basis for
                                        - 36 -

[*36] valuation.” Estate of Newhouse v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 193, 218 (1990).

But later occurring events, including later occurring sales of stock, “may be taken

into account as evidence of fair market value as of the valuation date.” Estate of

Jung v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 412, 431. As a rule, stock transactions post-dating

the valuation date are probative only if they occur “within a reasonable time * * *

after the valuation date.” Estate of Andrews, 79 T.C. at 940; see Estate of Scanlan

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-331, 72 T.C.M. (CCH) 160, 162 (considering

offers to purchase stock made more than 18 months after the valuation date), aff’d

without published opinion, 116 F.3d 1476 (5th Cir. 1997); Jayson v. United States,

294 F.2d 808, 810 (5th Cir. 1961) (considering as not too remote a transaction

occurring 3 1/2 years after the valuation date). Petitioner has cited no case in

which a court employed, as its principal valuation metric, a stock sale that occurred

as many as 12 years after the valuation date.

      If we assume arguendo that the 1984 redemption price could be used to de-

termine the value of NAI stock in July 1972, various adjustments would have to be

made to take account of changes wrought by the passage of time. These would in-

clude “changes in general inflation, people’s expectations with respect to that in-

dustry, performances of the various components of the business, technology, and

the provisions of tax law that might affect fair market values.” Estate of Jung, 101
                                        - 37 -

[*37] T.C. at 431-432; Estate of Scanlan, 72 T.C.M. (CCH) at 163. Here,

adjustments between 1972 and 1984 might be required for differences in macro-

economic factors (such as inflation, interest rates, and stock market values),

industry-specific factors (such as changes in the movie industry), and company-

specific factors (such as changes in the mix of NAI’s assets or lines of business).

      When implementing his valuation methodology, Mr. Klein made no adjust-

ment of any kind to account for differences between the macro-economic, industry-

specific, and NAI-specific conditions prevailing in 1984 and those prevailing in

1972. And he provided no rationale for failing to make these adjustments, stating:

“I considered the need for normalization adjustment based on the available data.

None came to mind.” His failure to make (or to show the absence of a need to

make) relevant adjustments renders his report altogether unreliable. We thus have

no need to decide whether his “engrafting method” is an acceptable method of

valuing closely-held company stock;8 whether the 1984 redemption was too remote

from the July 1972 valuation date to constitute probative evidence; or whether the




      8
        Respondent’s expert, Mr. Hastings, opines that the “engrafting method” is
not a recognized method of valuing corporate stock. Mr. Klein argues that his
method, which employs a ratio between the 1984 redemption price and NAI’s net
income, resembles the “direct capitalization” method.
                                        - 38 -

[*38] price NAI paid to redeem the Trusts’ stock in 1984, contrary to the conten-

tions of the O’Connor plaintiffs, was determined at fair market value.

      2.     Respondent’s Expert

      Respondent’s expert, Mr. Hastings, based his valuation of NAI stock as of

July 21, 1972, primarily on the price that NAI paid to redeem Edward’s stock on

June 30, 1972. Mr. Hastings opined that the $5 million price NAI agreed to pay

Edward was negotiated at arm’s length, was essentially contemporaneous with

Sumner’s transfer, and yielded a value of $75,000 per NAI common share.

      We agree with Mr. Hastings. The transaction by which NAI redeemed Ed-

ward’s shares occurred “within a reasonable time before * * * the valuation date.”

Estate of Andrews, 79 T.C. at 940. It thus reflected market conditions approxima-

ting those prevalent three weeks later when Sumner made his gift. In Estate of

Redstone, 145 T.C. at __ (slip op. at 22-23), we concluded that the Settlement

Agreement pursuant to which NAI redeemed Edward’s stock was the result of

arm’s-length bargaining among Mickey, Sumner, and Edward. The price at which

Edward’s stock would be redeemed was a central element of this bargaining, and

we conclude that it, in particular, was negotiated at arm’s length.

      Mickey, Sumner, and Edward were NAI’s three principals. They had

worked for NAI for decades and were thoroughly familiar with its financial con-
                                       - 39 -

[*39] dition and prospects. Edward had an economic interest in getting paid as

much as possible for his shares, and Sumner and Mickey had an economic interest

in paying him as little as possible. All three were represented by counsel, and they

negotiated this point for more than a year. We find that the outcome of this

negotiation--a per-share price of $75,000--represented the fair market value of NAI

common stock as of the valuation date. This yields a value of $2.5 million for the

33 1/3 shares that Sumner transferred to the Brent and Shari Trusts.

      3.    Petitioner’s Arguments

      Petitioner advances four arguments in support of his submission that the

price NAI paid Edward is not a reliable index of NAI’s stock value. First, he

contends that the June 30, 1972, redemption transaction cannot be employed under

the regulations because Edward and NAI were “under * * * [a] compulsion to buy

or sell.” See sec. 25.2512-1, Gift Tax Regs. According to petitioner, Mickey and

NAI were under a compulsion to buy Edward’s shares “because they wanted to

prevent Edward from selling his stock to an outsider”; and Edward was under a

compulsion to sell because he was supposedly under financial strain.

      We find no evidence that the transaction by which NAI redeemed Edward’s

stock was in any sense a “forced sale.” Cf. Heiner v. Crosby, 24 F.2d 191 (3d Cir.

1928) (noting that “forced sales” do not signify fair market value). The parties did
                                         - 40 -

[*40] not act in haste; they negotiated for six months before Edward filed his

lawsuits and for another six months thereafter. See Estate of Sharp v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-636, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 1521, 1525 (finding that

the existence of business disputes between the selling parties did not mean they

“were under any ‘compulsion’ to sell”). All parties were experienced businessmen,

and all had the assistance of able counsel. The leisurely pace of their negotiations

suggests that neither side felt compelled to act. As often in litigation, each side

held some leverage over the other because of the latter’s circumstances. But this

does not mean that either was compelled to act. Quite the contrary is true: the

possession of leverage over one’s opponent is often an incentive to hold out rather

than to capitulate.

      Second, petitioner points out that Edward did not receive the $5 million re-

demption price in cash. Rather, he received from NAI a $5 million note payable in

quarterly installments over 10 years. Petitioner contends that Edward actually re-

ceived proceeds worth less than $5 million because NAI’s note bore interest at a

“below market * * * rate.”

      There is no factual support for this argument. Edward’s note bore interest at

the “floating prime rate” charged by the Boston bank from which NAI had obtained

most of its financing. NAI’s financial statements show that its third-party borrow-
                                         - 41 -

[*41] ings were generally effected at the prime rate. Since the prime rate is the rate

at which NAI borrowed from its institutional lenders, it was an arm’s-length

interest rate that fully compensated Edward for the time value of money and the

risk of nonpayment.

      Third, petitioner contends that the $5 million redemption price compensated

Edward, not only for surrendering 66 2/3 shares of NAI stock, but also for execut-

ing releases of the claims he held against NAI, Mickey, and Sumner. We find no

merit in this argument. The Settlement Agreement and the Redemption Agreement

specifically provided that NAI would purchase Edward’s 66 2/3 shares for $5 mil-

lion, i.e., that this consideration was being paid exclusively for his stock. The re-

leases were provided for separately in the Settlement Agreement. Under section 9

thereof, Mickey, Sumner, NAI, and Edward each released all claims in considera-

tion of the other parties’ reciprocal release of claims.

      Petitioner has supplied no reason to believe that the releases that he, Mickey,

and NAI provided to Edward were less valuable than the releases that Edward pro-

vided to them. For example, Mickey originally claimed that the “oral trust” cov-

ered half of Edward’s 100 shares, whereas Edward claimed outright ownership of

all 100 shares. Mickey and Edward released their respective claims pursuant to a

compromise by which Edward was deemed the outright owner of 66 2/3 shares.
                                         - 42 -

[*42] With respect to this and other claims, it is impossible to determine whose

release was more valuable because the case was settled rather than tried. Assuming

as we do that the parties rationally evaluated their respective hazards of litigation,

we conclude that the releases each party provided were equivalent in value to the

releases that each party received.9

      Finally, petitioner argues that the price NAI paid to redeem Edward’s shares

was inflated by a control premium because it “positioned petitioner to obtain con-

trol of NAI.” We likewise reject this argument. NAI executed the Redemption

Agreement with Edward; logically, it would not have paid a “control premium” to

acquire its own shares. Sumner had fiduciary duties to NAI’s other shareholders,

including the beneficiaries of the Grandchildren’s Trust, of which he was a trustee.

We will not assume that Sumner, in order to advance his own interest, breached his

fiduciary duties by causing NAI to pay Edward more than his shares were worth.




      9
         Petitioner urges that we ascribe value to Edward’s agreement to “have no-
thing further to do with the business or affairs of” NAI. But Edward had volun-
tarily left his employment at NAI nearly a year before the Settlement Agreement
was executed. He made no claims in the NAI Action for damages based on the
manner in which his employment ended. In the O’Connor litigation, petitioner
agreed that the stock Edward had transferred to his children’s Trusts was properly
valued at $75,000 per share; he did not contend that the proceeds Edward received
included compensation for release of employment or other claims.
                                        - 43 -

[*43] Instead, we accept Mr. Hastings’ conclusion that NAI would have agreed to

pay Edward no more than the amount he would have received by selling his shares

to an unrelated third-party buyer. Far from including a control premium, this

amount would incorporate a discount for a lack of marketability, which presumably

is reflected in the $5 million redemption price that the parties negotiated at arm’s

length.10 There is no evidence that Sumner caused NAI to pay a premium of any

kind to acquire Edward’s shares.

      In sum, we find that the redemption price NAI paid Edward on June 30,

1972, is a reliable index of the stock’s value on July 21, 1972, when Sumner made

his gifts. Because we find this actual arm’s-length transaction to be the best indi-

cator of fair market value, see Estate of Andrews, 79 T.C. at 940, we find it un-

necessary to examine the results that could be generated under the “direct capital-

ization” and “guideline public company” methods, which Mr. Hastings alternative-

ly employed. (After applying a discount for lack of marketability, he determined




      10
        Petitioner appears to accept this analysis when he agrees that a 34% lack-
of-marketability discount should be applied under the direct capitalization method
and the guideline public company method, but not under the mergers and acqui-
sitions method (which is exactly how Mr. Hastings applied the discounts). A dis-
count for lack of marketability was not required under the mergers and acquisi-
tions method in this case because it was already factored into the $5 million
redemption price.
                                         - 44 -

[*44] under these approaches values of $2,433,608 and $2,997,054, respectively,

for the 33 1/3 transferred shares.)

       The parties disagree about numerous inputs into these other methodologies,

including NAI’s cost of equity, the appropriate “beta,” the company’s expected

growth rate, and the universe of comparable companies. These disagreements are

not surprising because the valuation date was 43 years ago, the data available from

public databases and NAI’s own records are inadequate, and it is difficult to find

companies comparable to NAI in 1972, which was then (rather incongruously) an

entertainment company with much of its value tied up in real estate. Suffice it to

say that the $2.5 million valuation we have determined on the basis of the June

1972 redemption price falls comfortably within the range of values that can be

generated using various permutations of these other formulas.

III.   Additions to Tax

       A.    Addition to Tax for Fraud

       Respondent contends that petitioner is liable under section 6653(b) for an

addition to tax for fraud. Respondent bears the burden of proving fraud by clear

and convincing evidence. See Goldberg v. Commissioner, 239 F.2d 316, 320 (5th

Cir. 1956), rev’g T.C. Memo. 1954-242. Respondent contends that his “assertion

of the fraud penalty is based on petitioner’s complete failure to explain why, given
                                          - 45 -

[*45] that he knew that there was no preexisting oral trust, * * * [he] did not report

this gift and pay gift tax.”

      Respondent has not met his burden of proof. The oral trust may have been a

fiction, but it was a fiction with real-world consequences. Mickey passionately

believed in the “oral trust” theory and, at his insistence, it became a central feature

of the Settlement Agreement by which Edward’s litigation was resolved. To please

his father, Sumner adopted the same “oral trust” terminology when making a sym-

metrical transfer to his own children. There is no evidence that Sumner embraced

the “oral trust” concept in an effort to evade his Federal gift tax liabilities.

      B.     Other Additions to Tax

      Respondent alternatively contends that petitioner is liable for additions to tax

under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file a gift tax return and under section

6653(a) for negligence. In 1972 the Code imposed a 5% addition to tax on any

underpayment attributable to “negligence or intentional disregard of rules and

regulations.” See sec. 6653(a). The question of negligence is one of fact upon

which the taxpayer has the burden of proof. Marcello v. Commissioner, 43 T.C.

168, 182 (1964), aff’d in part, remanded in part, 380 F.2d 499 (5th Cir. 1967). A

taxpayer may show that his failure to file a return was not negligent if he relied in

good faith on advice from a tax professional that no tax liability existed or that no
                                          - 46 -

[*46] return was required. See Commissioner v. Am. Ass’n of Eng’rs Emp’t, Inc.,

204 F.2d 19 (7th Cir. 1953) (no addition to tax where taxpayer was advised by a

reputable tax attorney that he did not have to file a return); Haywood Lumber &

Mining Co. v. Commissioner, 178 F.2d 769, 771 (2d Cir. 1950).

      We find that petitioner made the requisite showing of a reasonable cause

defense for both additions to tax. Mr. Rosen, Mr. Isenberg, and the tax

professionals at J.K. Lasser were competent tax advisers. Collectively, they

advised Sumner about his gift tax filing requirements on 34 occasions beginning in

1970. Sumner sought and received their advice concerning the tax consequences

of transferring stock to the Brent and Shari Trusts. The evidence established that

Mr. Rosen obtained advice from J.K. Lasser’s national office about this

transaction; that this advice was memorialized in a letter or memorandum

concluding that no gift tax return was required to be filed; that Messrs. Rosen and

Isenberg concurred in this conclusion; and that Sumner relied on this advice in

good faith. We conclude that petitioner is not liable for an addition to tax for

negligence or for failure to file a gift tax return.
                                  - 47 -

[*47] To reflect the foregoing,


                                           Decision will be entered for

                                  respondent as to the deficiency and for

                                  petitioner as to the additions to tax.
