{"title":"为遗产税目的对公司进行估值:一种布朗特的重新评估","authors":"A. Chodorow","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.924425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Valuation issues have long been the bane of the estate tax. In addition to the basic problem of valuing property in the absence of a market transaction, taxpayers routinely engage in tactics specifically designed to suppress the value of their property for estate tax purposes, without actually diminishing the value of the property itself. This article explores a recurring issue of asset valuation, which the Eleventh Circuit purported to resolve in Estate of Blount v. Commissioner, 428 F.3d 1338, 1339 (11th Cir. 2005), namely how to value a corporation where the corporation is set to receive insurance proceeds on account of a decedent's death, but where those proceeds are offset by a corresponding obligation to redeem the decedent's shares. Both the Eleventh and the Ninth Circuit (the only other court to consider this issue) concluded that insurance proceeds and redemption obligations offset, and therefore insurance proceeds should be excluded from corporate value. I argue here that, despite the superficial appeal of their holdings, both courts are, in no uncertain terms, wrong. Rather, insurance proceeds must be included in corporate value, and any redemption agreement must be ignored.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Valuing Corporations for Estate Tax Purposes: A Blount Reappraisal\",\"authors\":\"A. Chodorow\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.924425\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Valuation issues have long been the bane of the estate tax. In addition to the basic problem of valuing property in the absence of a market transaction, taxpayers routinely engage in tactics specifically designed to suppress the value of their property for estate tax purposes, without actually diminishing the value of the property itself. This article explores a recurring issue of asset valuation, which the Eleventh Circuit purported to resolve in Estate of Blount v. Commissioner, 428 F.3d 1338, 1339 (11th Cir. 2005), namely how to value a corporation where the corporation is set to receive insurance proceeds on account of a decedent's death, but where those proceeds are offset by a corresponding obligation to redeem the decedent's shares. Both the Eleventh and the Ninth Circuit (the only other court to consider this issue) concluded that insurance proceeds and redemption obligations offset, and therefore insurance proceeds should be excluded from corporate value. I argue here that, despite the superficial appeal of their holdings, both courts are, in no uncertain terms, wrong. Rather, insurance proceeds must be included in corporate value, and any redemption agreement must be ignored.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29865,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.924425\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.924425","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
长期以来,估值问题一直是遗产税的祸根。除了在缺乏市场交易的情况下评估财产价值的基本问题外,纳税人还经常采取专门设计的策略,以压低其财产的价值,以达到遗产税的目的,而实际上并没有减少财产本身的价值。本文探讨了资产估值的一个反复出现的问题,该问题在第十一巡回法院声称要在布朗特诉专员一案(Estate of Blount v. Commissioner, 428 F.3d 1338, 1339(2005年第11巡回法院)中得到解决,即如何对一家公司进行估值,该公司将因死者死亡而获得保险收益,但这些收益被相应的赎回死者股份的义务所抵消。第十一巡回法院和第九巡回法院(唯一考虑这一问题的法院)的结论是,保险收益和赎回义务相抵消,因此保险收益应排除在公司价值之外。我认为,尽管他们的判决表面上有吸引力,但毫无疑问,这两个法院都是错误的。相反,保险收益必须包含在公司价值中,任何赎回协议都必须被忽略。
Valuing Corporations for Estate Tax Purposes: A Blount Reappraisal
Valuation issues have long been the bane of the estate tax. In addition to the basic problem of valuing property in the absence of a market transaction, taxpayers routinely engage in tactics specifically designed to suppress the value of their property for estate tax purposes, without actually diminishing the value of the property itself. This article explores a recurring issue of asset valuation, which the Eleventh Circuit purported to resolve in Estate of Blount v. Commissioner, 428 F.3d 1338, 1339 (11th Cir. 2005), namely how to value a corporation where the corporation is set to receive insurance proceeds on account of a decedent's death, but where those proceeds are offset by a corresponding obligation to redeem the decedent's shares. Both the Eleventh and the Ninth Circuit (the only other court to consider this issue) concluded that insurance proceeds and redemption obligations offset, and therefore insurance proceeds should be excluded from corporate value. I argue here that, despite the superficial appeal of their holdings, both courts are, in no uncertain terms, wrong. Rather, insurance proceeds must be included in corporate value, and any redemption agreement must be ignored.