- 12 -
considering the nature of the business; and (5) did not take into
account $90,000 of liabilities.
We note that decedent and her husband died within a short
time of each other. Furthermore, most of the errors complained
of by the estate are orthographic. While they might reflect that
Mr. Sherman’s appraisal needed proofreading, they do not show
that the value is erroneous.
As for the posited errors which appear to be more
substantive in nature, again, they do not show that the value,
itself, is erroneous. The purported $90,000 in liabilities was
unknown and unforeseeable at the time of decedent’s death and
cannot be used for valuation purposes. See, e.g., Estate of
Busch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-3. Furthermore, despite
the estate’s claim, it does not appear that Mr. Sherman
overstated by $900,000 the amount of excess working capital. In
fact, his valuation of excess working capital appears reasonable
and was approximately $100,000 lower than that of respondent’s
expert.
Contrary to the estate’s contentions, the record is replete
with evidence that the value reported on the estate tax return
was correct. For instance, in probate litigation between the
decedent’s two sons, Jeffrey and Steven Leichter settled the
dispute based upon a $2,261,713 value of Harlee, determined by a
probate referee, who was an independent party appointed by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011