Hospital Corporation of America and Subsidiaries - Page 52

                                       - 52 -                                         
               Based on the foregoing, we agree with petitioner that the              
          Interstate Valuation does not constitute an admission by                    
          petitioners.                                                                
               Even had we agreed with respondent that the Interstate                 
          Valuation constituted an admission, we would not be precluded               
          from reaching a different value from that reached by Interstate.            
          See Mauldin v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. at 760-761 (although                   
          appraisal report was admitted as an admission against                       
          Government's interest, the Court reached its own opinion as to              
          value of donated property based on the record as a whole); see              
          also Transamerica Corp. v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. at 471-472             
          (same).  Respondent provided neither the qualifications of the              
          preparer of the Interstate Valuation nor the bases of the                   
          opinions expressed therein.  No one involved in preparing the               
          Interstate Valuation was made available for cross-examination.              
          Accordingly, we would accord the Interstate Valuation little, if            
          any, weight if we were to admit it.  See Pack v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 1980-65 n.23; see also Harris v. Commissioner, 46 T.C.           
          672, 674 (1966); Rowland v. Commissioner, 5 B.T.A. 770, 771-772             
          (1926); Montgomery Bros. & Co. v. Commissioner, 5 B.T.A. 258, 260           
          (1926); Kilburn Lincoln Mach. Co. v. Commissioner, 2 B.T.A. 363,            
          364 (1925).                                                                 
               Respondent further contends that the Interstate Valuation is           
          admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay              






Page:  Previous  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011