Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and reinvest the proceeds. “Courts may not permit the positing of transactions which are unlikely and plainly contrary to the economic interest of a hypothetical buyer.” Estate of Smith v. Comm’r, 198 F.3d 515, 529 (5th Cir.1999), citing Eisenberg, 155 F.3d at 57. The Tax Court’s internally inconsistent assumptions, that a hypothetical purchaser of Johnco stock would engage in long-range timber production even though the Timber Property’s annual rate of return is substantially lower than the investor’s required return, fatally flawed its decision to discount s, proximity, and time, the more probative it is of value. Id. Courts have observed, however, that agreed valuations near in time to a decedent’s death are not conclusive. United States v. Simmons, 346 F.2d 213, 216 (5th Cir.1965) (<HOLDING>); First Nat’l Bank of Kenosha v. United States, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs as a matter of law (B) holding that irs claim for taxes and claim of debtor against irs for violation of automatic stay did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence (C) holding that the irss full participation in the bankruptcy proceeding in relation to an income tax debt did not bar it from collecting a gift tax debt that had also been listed in the debtors schedules where the irs did not file a proof of claim and the debtor did not force the irs into the proceeding on the gift tax debt (D) holding that irs was bound by plan and bankruptcy codes method of determining amount of nondischargeable claim where irs had filed proof of claim for nondischargeable tax debt (E) holding that the irs has a law enforcement purpose in the context of a criminal tax investigation
Output (English): holding that irs claim for taxes and claim of debtor against irs for violation of automatic stay did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence