- 35 -
Second, we are disturbed by Weinberg's lack of regard for
comparable sales. According to Weinberg, the brewing industry
generally does not lend itself to a valuation by comparable sales
because potential buyers change so rapidly in the industry.
Weinberg testified that it was impossible for him to find sales
of property comparable to the subject property because he
considers a sale comparable only when the breweries are
technically identical, the transactions occur during the same
time period, and the potential purchasers are the same. We do
not agree. Although it is true that the date of a sale should be
relatively close in time to a valuation date in order to be
meaningful, we are unpersuaded that the brewing industry does not
lend itself to one of the most accurate forms of valuation (i.e.,
comparable sales). After carefully reviewing the sales of
breweries that Tonna referenced as comparable to the breweries in
this case, we believe that some of these sales might have been
useful to our decision had they been properly developed.
Third, we are disturbed by the fact that Weinberg did not
actually appraise or value the assets at issue. Instead, he
analyzed a combination of the assets as a potential profit
opportunity. When viewed against all evidence in the record,
including the reports of the other experts, we find his analysis
unpersuasive in establishing the fair market value of any of the
assets for Federal income tax purposes. We find that his
conclusions on the values of the subject assets are too high.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011