Estate of Jones v. Commissioner
United State Tax Court
116 T.C. 121 (2001)
- Written by Tom Squier, JD
Facts
In 1995, for estate- and business-planning purposes, W.W. Jones II formed two partnerships with his children, which he used to hold, manage, and distribute two family ranches. Upon the creation of the partnerships, Jones contributed significant amounts of real property, along with personal property and cattle, for which he received a significant majority in the limited partnership interests in the businesses. The partnership agreements for the businesses had provisions that limited the ability of partners to leave the partnership or liquidate the business, with the plan being to keep the land in the family for at least 35 years. The restrictions on liquidation were no more restrictive than the laws of Texas regarding partnership interests. Immediately after creating the partnerships, Jones gifted most of his limited partnership interests to his children, the other partners. When Jones filed his 1995 federal gift-tax return, his accountant, Charles L. Elliott, Jr., included a valuation report that reported significant discounts on the value of the gifted interests based on their limited ability to sell on a secondary market and their lack of marketability. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined that the estate was deficient for $4,412,527 in federal gift taxes from the 1995 transfers. Jones’s estate (plaintiff) petitioned the United States Tax Court, arguing that no additional tax was owed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cohen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.