Divorce Mediation Blog

Rule 2704 Opposition - Talking Points

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Recently, we blogged about the Internal Revenue Service proposed new section 2704 rules, which if enacted in their current form would create a new minimum value for businesses subject to intra-family transactions, and essentially eliminate discounts for marketability in that context.

Many in the business appraisal and estate planning communities are up in arms, and they mobilizing to defeat this IRS move, before it becomes entrenched.

While keeping an eye on unfolding commentary, we ran across “talking points” suggested by the American Society of Appraisers for use in opposing the new regulations. In summary they are:

  1. By increasing the value of fractional interests in family businesses, the new rules would result in an "stealth" tax increase of 25-50% in estate and gift taxes.
  2. By treating intra-family actors as "known parties", rather than hypothetical buyers and sellers, the rule would disregard the reality that a fractional interest is in fact, fractional, and not controlling, reducing its economic value.
  3. The notion that families will always work in concert has been rejected previously by the United States Supreme Court.
  4. The suggestion that intra-family transfers should be treated differently than those between unrelated parties is unsupported by any public reasoning advanced by the IRS.
  5. The proposed rule may put IRS regulations on a collision course with various state laws which recognize applicability of marketability discounts.
  6. This new approach will cause family-owned businesses to delay capital investment, and inhibit new hiring, as they preserve cash for pain increased taxes.

As divorce mediators and arbitrators, a former Probate judge, and litigators-in-recovery, we are used to this approach from Bernier, in the divorce context, but in estate and gift taxation?

What do you think?

Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly facilitated negotiations Massachusetts divorce mediators divorce mediations Massachusetts lawyers Massachusetts alimony mediations Divorce Agreements DOMA divorce litigation Same Sex Marriage litigation mediators divorce process Baseball Players Massachusetts alimony and child support Baseball Arbitration lawyer-attended mediation annulment alimony Boston mediator Cohabitation Levine Dispute Resolution high-risk methodology special master Self-adjusting alimony orders Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act Defense of Marriage Act child support divorce arbitrators family law arbitrators Alimony Reform Act lawyer family support Child Support Guidelines Levine Dispute Resolutions divorce and family law mediators Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth pre-ARA alimony dispute resolution conciliation Uniform Arbitration Act The Seven Sins of Alimony LDRC divorced alimony orders divorce arbitration Divorce rehabilitative alimony Family Law Arbitration fraud family law arbitrator Levine Dispute Resolution Center alimony reform legislation alimony statute family law mediation separation health insurance family law SJC Obamacare General term alimony COLA lawyers arbitrator Chouteau Levine med/arb IRC §2704 arbitrators traditional negotiations MLB labor agreement divorce and family law Levine Dispute Resolution Center LLC Matrimonial Arbitration how baseball arbitration works divorce mediator Major League Baseball Arbitration Massachusetts Massachusetts divorce lawyers arbitration private dispute resolution divorce lawyers Baseball disputes resolve disputes family and probate law disputes divorce agreement health coverage support orders medical benefits alimony law divorce mediators divorce mediation mediation family mediation med-arb divorce arbitrator self-adjusting alimony divorce judgment