Connelly v. United States (II)
The U.S. Supreme Court took on this case because of a split between two circuit courts. In the first case, Blount v. Commr., the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court and excluded the insurance proceeds that accrued as a result of the death of the shareholder. In the Connelly case, the Tax Court once again included the insurance proceeds in the estate. The 8th Circuit affirmed the Tax Court, and the Supreme Court now unanimously affirmed the 8th Circuit, thus negating the decision of the 11th Circuit in Blount.
U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Inclusion of Corporate-Owned Life Insurance in Value of Company for Estate Tax Purposes
The U.S. Supreme Court took on this case because of a split between two circuit courts. In the first case, Blount v. Commr., the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court and excluded the insurance proceeds that accrued as a result of the death of the shareholder since there was a binding liability to pay the proceeds to the estate of the decedent. In the Connelly case, the Tax Court once again included the insurance proceeds in the estate. The 8th Circuit affirmed the Tax Court, and the Supreme Court now unanimously affirmed the 8th Circuit, thus negating the decision of the 11th Circuit in Blount.
8th Circuit Affirms District Court—Includes Life Insurance Proceeds in Value of Redeemed Shares
The importance of this case was that the 8th Circuit’s decision to affirm the lower court and IRS’ inclusion of life insurance proceeds in the value of the corporation for which decedent’s stock was redeemed. This contradicted the decision of the 11th Circuit in Estate of Blount that 26 C.F.R. § 20.2031-2(f)(2) precluded the inclusion of life-insurance proceeds in the corporate value when the proceeds were used for a redemption obligation.
Connelly v. United States (I)
The importance of this case was that the 8th Circuit’s decision to affirm the lower court and IRS’ inclusion of life insurance proceeds in the value of the corporation for which decedent’s stock was redeemed. This contradicted the decision of the 11th Circuit in Estate of Blount that 26 C.F.R. § 20.2031-2(f)(2) precluded the inclusion of life-insurance proceeds in the corporate value when the proceeds were used for a redemption obligation.
Garza v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd.
$10 million punitive damages award is upheld, thanks in large part to BV expert's testimony.
2nd Circuit Affirms Application of Daubert in Fraudulent Conveyance Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to exclude Lippe’s valuation experts because their experts’ reports contained significant flaws that primarily related to the failure to explain assumptions involving the comparable company.
Lippe v. Bairnco Corp. (III)
The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to exclude Lippe’s valuation experts because their experts’ reports contained significant flaws that primarily related to the failure to explain assumptions involving the comparable company.
Case Update—Lippe v. Bairnco Corp
Follow exclusion of plaintiffs' witnesses (see May 2003 BVU), the court denied plaintiffs' motion to substitute a new valuation expert or submit a supplemental expert report, finding that defendants would be severely prejudiced.
Valuation 'Experts' Excluded as Unreliable Based on Numerous Errors in Methodology and Inability to Explain Conclusions
In this bankruptcy adversary proceeding, the trustees as plaintiffs sought to prove that the defendants—Bairnco Corp., Keene Corp., and the individual managers of the companies—had engaged in a series of fraudulent conveyances among subsidiaries to protect assets from the reach of asbestos claimants.
Lippe v. Bairnco Corp. (II)
Follow exclusion of plaintiffs’ witnesses (see May 2003 BVU) the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to substitute a new valuation expert or submit a supplemental expert report, finding that defendants would be severely prejudiced.
Lippe v. Bairnco Corp. (I)
In this bankruptcy adversary proceeding, the trustees as plaintiffs sought to prove that the defendants—Bairnco Corp., Keene Corp., and the individual managers of the companies—had engaged in a series of fraudulent conveyances among subsidiaries to protect assets from the reach of asbestos claimants.