Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: September 9, 2013
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe Internal Revenue Service is not backing down on a tax dispute claiming that the estate of the late Piston’s owner Bill Davidson owes more than $2 billion in estate taxes. The agency said the large estate bill is the result of Davidson’s misuse of gift tax law and his underpayment for sizable gifts made to family members. The agency is also disputing the value of stocks put in trusts for his heirs.
Davidson’s estate representatives contend that they do not owe the IRS anything more than what they have already paid in estate taxes, and the dispute is likely to play out in court as both parties are unwilling to concede. The estate asserts that the federal tax agency has greatly inflated the tax bill – which is approximately $2.8 billion, according to the Detroit Free Press. However, the agency fired back in a U.S. Tax Court in Washington, and said that Davidson failed to report on large gifts and did not properly value certain investments passed on to beneficiaries.
For instance, the agency argues that Davidson failed to use the same standards and methods of establishing value of stocks that the IRS uses. In addition, it charges that Davidson’s life expectancy was a key determination in establishing the value of self-canceling installment notes, the newspaper reports. With these notes, Davidson could essentially transfer assets to family members, who would make payments on the assets while Davidson lived. After his death, the family members would own the assets outright.
Although physicians gave Davidson a clean bill of health in the months before his death and presumed that he had several years left in his life expectancy, the agency – which uses life expectancy to determine whether payments are taxed or considered gifts – claims that these amounts are taxable.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Author: Graham Staton

Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Author: Chris Seelinger
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!