Tax Court Rules on Built-In Gains Discount and Appraiser Qualification

by Williams Mullen

On February 11, 2014, the United States Tax Court issued a memorandum opinion (i) determining the proper method for valuing a holding company (i.e., an S or C corporation holding marketable securities or appreciated investment assets), (ii) affirming its position with respect to the appropriate discount for built-in capital gains, and (iii) upholding an underpayment penalty due partly to an appraiser’s lack of expert qualification.


In Estate of Richmond v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2014-26, the estate challenged the IRS’s valuation of the decedent’s interest in a family-owned personal holding company and the assessment of an underpayment penalty relating to that valuation.

At the time of her death on December 10, 2005, Helen Richmond owned a 23.44% interest in a family-owned holding company (in this instance, a C corporation).  The company had paid a regular dividend to its shareholders from 1970 through 2005.  From 1971 through 1999, shares were sold, redeemed, or issued in ten separate transactions that valued the stock using a dividends-capitalization method.

The estate retained a CPA to value Ms. Richmond’s interest in the company for purposes of the estate tax return.  The CPA had been licensed in Delaware since 1975 but did not have any appraiser certifications.  He had written 10-20 valuation reports and testified regarding valuation matters previously in court.  The CPA valued the interest using a dividends-capitalization method and provided an unsigned draft of his valuation report to the estate, but was never asked to finalize his report.  The estate reported the value of the decedent’s interest consistent with the value determined by the CPA (i.e., $3,149,767). 

IRS Challenge and Tax Court Ruling

The IRS issued a notice of deficiency to the estate adjusting the value of the decedent’s interest upwards to $9,223,658, resulting in an increase in the estate tax liability of nearly $3 million.  The IRS also assessed an underpayment penalty.

At trial, the IRS argued that the decedent’s interest should be valued using a discounted net asset value (NAV) method, and the Tax Court agreed.  The court found that the dividends-capitalization approach was appropriate for entities with difficult to value assets, but that the NAV method was most appropriate for holding companies whose assets are marketable securities.  Thus, the court found that the valuation of the subject interest should begin with the company’s NAV of $52,159,430.

The estate argued that, if the NAV method were accepted as the best approach for valuing the decedent’s interest, the tax liability on the company’s significant built-in capital gains (BICG) should reduce the company’s NAV on a dollar-for-dollar basis.  On the facts presented, the IRS instead applied a BICG tax discount of 43% of the BICG tax liability.  The court found that a 100% BICG tax discount was not appropriate; rather, the most reasonable discount was the present value of the projected cost of paying capital gains taxes in the future.  This ruling was consistent with the Tax Court’s position with respect to BICG tax discounts in cases where there is no contrary, binding appeals court precedent (as there is in the 5th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals).  In addition to the BICG tax discount, the Tax Court allowed minority interest and lack of marketability discounts of 7.75% and 32.1%, respectively.

The estate sought to avoid the underpayment penalty associated with the adjustment of the value of the decedent’s interest by claiming that the estate had reasonable cause for the undervaluation because the estate relied on the expert opinion of the CPA.  The court found that the estate did not have reasonable cause, because (i) the CPA was not a “certified appraiser,” (ii) the estate relied on an unsigned draft valuation report, and (iii) prior to trial, the estate hired another appraiser who offered a higher value, but the estate did not explain the defects in the CPA’s original valuation. 


Estate of Richmond v. Commissioner indicates that, for transfer tax purposes, a NAV valuation approach is the most appropriate method for valuing an interest in a marketable securities holding company, even where the company has a lengthy history of consistent dividends and prior valuations using other approaches.  Given the consistency of dividends and prior valuations, it is difficult to imagine a situation where the dividends-capitalization approach would be more appropriate for valuing an interest in a family holding company than it was in Estate of Richmond.

Estate of Richmond also affirms that, where the Tax Court is not bound to appeals court authority indicating a 100% BICG tax discount, the Tax Court will allow a BICG tax discount only to account for the predicted cost of paying capital gains taxes in the future.  This approach seems to be at odds with the theory behind the NAV valuation method, as recognized by the 5th and 11th Circuits:  that the company could be created from scratch by someone else, who would have no BICG tax liability.

Finally, Estate of Richmond underscores the importance of hiring well-qualified valuation experts who carry professional certifications and are familiar with Tax Court rulings regarding valuation methods and discounts to value interests in closely-held entities.  In Estate of Richmond, a CPA license and some valuation experience was found to be insufficient to protect the taxpayer from underpayment penalties.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Williams Mullen | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Williams Mullen

Williams Mullen on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.