Printer Friendly

Valuation of closely held stock.

In Manbelbaum, TC Memo 1995-255, three brothers owned all of the shares of a closely held company in the retail industry. The brothers were equal shareholders until they transferred shares o stock to their children. The stock was always completely owned within these three branches of the family.

All shareholders were actively involved in the business. Each shareholder's voting shares would become nonvoting if they were transferred to persons other than the board of directors. Board of directors and officers of the company were restricted to family members. Furthermore, the company had the right of first refusal if a shareholder wanted to transfer stock out of the family group.

Gift tax returns were filed by the three brothers on the transfer of shares of stock to their children and grantor trusts. In order to determine the gift tax on the transfer, the donors' accountant reduced the appraised value of the stock by marketability discounts ranging from 70% to 75%. The IRS's expert found the appropriate marketability discount to be 30% and the Service assessed penalties under former Sec. 6660 and Sec. 6662(a) and (g) for substantial valuation understatements.

The Tax Court agreed with the IRS'S expert, and found 30% to be an appropriate marketability discount factor. Several factors influenced the court's decision. The company's strong financial status (based on such factors as its financial statements, management, dividend policy, history, position in the industry and future potential) favored a below-average marketability discount.

The control factor was given an average marketability discount, since none of the blocks of stock represented substantial control. The court found that the shareholder agreements preserving control by the family did not severely restrict marketability, and that an above-average to average marketability discount was related to the expense involved with a public offering.

With respect to the penalties imposed by the Service for substantial valuation understatement, the court found that the donors used prudence and care by depending on a professional to determine the valuation of the gifts for tax purposes and therefore were not liable for penalties.

Much of the authority on marketability discounts for valuation purposes is found in case law. When determining the marketability discounts for closely held companies, professionals should compare their clients' situations to similar facts from case law. Proper documentation and professional appraisals are strongly recommended to derive the proper values of the gift and of the applicable discounts. This may protect a client from valuation penalties even when there are wide discrepancies.
COPYRIGHT 1995 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1995, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Phelps, Mary Brooke
Publication:The Tax Adviser
Date:Dec 1, 1995
Previous Article:Basis adjustment for gift tax paid - amendment to regs. sec. 1.1015-5.
Next Article:Charitable contributions of closely held stock.

Related Articles
Valuing closely held businesses.
Valuation of closely held businesses: estate and gift tax issues.
Planning the purchase or sale of a closely held business.
How owners of closely held businesses can use minority valuations to lower estate taxes.
Valuing gifts of closely held stocks.
Swing vote attribute affects value of gifted minority interest.
Recapitalization occurring prior to the effective date of Chapter 14 treated as taxable gift.
Valuing closely held businesses. (Estates, Trusts & Gifts).
Effect of built-in gain on value of closely held stock.
A good deal depends on preparation: CPAs can help client-owners of closely held entities tidy up their businesses for a sale.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |