Strangi: A Critical Analysis and Planning Suggestions

Posted: 6 Sep 2005

See all articles by Mitchell M. Gans

Mitchell M. Gans

Hofstra University - School of Law

Jonathan G. Blattmachr

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP

Abstract

In Strangi, the Tax Court eliminated all estate tax discounts for a family partnership. It held, as it had in several prior cases, that section 2036(a)(1) required this result. The court then went on to reach the alternative holding that section 2036(a)(2) likewise precluded the estate from claiming a discount. While many have taken steps to address the threat that section 2036(a)(1) poses to these partnerships, few, if any, anticipated the court's alternative holding and the potentially critical threat it poses if sustained. The authors argue that the alternative holding is based on a misreading of the Supreme Court's decision in Byrum and is inconsistent with the Service's own published guidance. They go on to suggest various planning strategies for existing and new partnerships that will neutralize this new threat, concluding that Strangi's alternative holding is not only an imperfect solution for abusive partnership discounts but also nothing more than a trap for the unwary.

Suggested Citation

Gans, Mitchell M. and Blattmachr, Jonathan G., Strangi: A Critical Analysis and Planning Suggestions. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=439901

Mitchell M. Gans (Contact Author)

Hofstra University - School of Law ( email )

121 Hofstra University
Hempstead, NY 11549
United States
(516) 463-5876 (Phone)

Jonathan G. Blattmachr

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP ( email )

1 Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York, NY 10005
United States
212-530-5066 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
1,341
PlumX Metrics