- 36 -
He ascertained that the fair market value of the brands of beer
was $93.2 million. This amount is more than $90 million higher
than both the amount shown in the Allocation Agreement and the
amount ascertained by Tonna. It is approximately $90 million
higher than the amount determined by respondent. It is almost
three-fourths of the amount of the total consideration that
Heileman paid for all of the Transferred Assets.
Fourth, Weinberg testified that the income production
capability of a brewery's assets is the only measure of the
assets' fair market values because brewery assets have value only
to another brewery. We are not persuaded. Although Weinberg may
be correct with respect to certain types of machinery and
equipment which are specially customized to the brewing industry,
a fact that we do not find, we are not persuaded that the same
would hold true with respect to a brewery's land and/or building.
Having disregarded the valuation portion of all of the
experts' opinions, we are left to determine the fair market value
of the subject assets from the record before us. See Tripp v.
Commissioner, 337 F.2d at 434; Goldstein v. Commissioner,
298 F.2d at 567. An actual sale of stock may be relevant in
measuring the value of the underlying corporate assets. See
Kalmon Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner, 321 F.2d 189 (8th
Cir. 1963), affg. T.C. Memo. 1962-56; Schmick v. Commissioner,
3 B.T.A. 1141 (1926); Hinkel v. Motter, 39 F.2d 159 (D. Kan.
1930); see also Ingram-Richardson, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C.
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