g saving clause that provided for a retroactive adjustment of stock to escape any imposition of gift tax). The present case is distinguishable from Procter and its progeny. Here, unlike there, the formula clauses impose no condition subsequent that would defeat the transfer. Moreover, as stated above, t

pon a moot case. See id. Third, the provision would reduce a Federal court's final judgment to a declaratory judgment. See id. Since Commissioner v. Procter, supra, Federal courts have relied upon that case to invalidate other saving provisions. See, e.g., Ward v. Commissioner[ Dec. 43,178], 87 T.C. 78

s “Green Book” 01/23/12 Estate of Petter v. Commissioner: another taxpayer victory using a “defined value” 2012-01 formula clause, and the legacy of Procter v. Commissioner 2011 12/02/11 “Super Committee” bows out; 2012 inflation-adjusted numbers and various planning 2011-09 points; the “Sensible Estate