Pabst Brewing Company - Page 36

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011