- 26 -
hypothetical persons are not necessarily the same as the personal
characteristics of the actual seller or a particular buyer.
Propstra v. United States, 680 F.2d 1248, 1251-1252 (9th Cir.
1982); Estate of Bright v. United States, 658 F.2d 999, 1005-1006
(5th Cir. 1981); Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 412,
437-438 (1993); Estate of Newhouse v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 193,
218 (1990); Minihan v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 492, 499 (1987).
Fair market value is determined as of the valuation date,
and no knowledge of unforeseeable future events which may have
affected the value is given to the hypothetical persons.
Sec. 20.2031-1(b), Estate Tax Regs; see also Estate of Newhouse
v. Commissioner, supra at 218. Fair market value equals the
highest and best use to which the property could be put on the
valuation date, and fair market value takes into account special
uses that are realistically available due to the property's
adaptability to a particular business. Mitchell v. United
States, 267 U.S. 341, 344-345 (1925); Symington v. Commissioner,
87 T.C. 892, 896 (1986); Stanley Works & Subs. v. Commissioner,
87 T.C. 389, 400 (1986). Fair market value is not affected by
whether the owner has actually put the property to its highest
and best use. The reasonable, realistic, and objective possible
uses for the property in the near future control the valuation
thereof. Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255 (1934);
United States v. Meadow Brook Club, 259 F.2d 41, 45 (2d Cir.
1958); Stanley Works & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at 400.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011