- 17 -
between the value of the land and the improvements to the land.
We did not admit the Caragol letter into evidence because it was
not available at trial, much less 15 days before trial, as
required by the standing pretrial order.4
It is important for us to know the fair market value of
petitioner's land when she acquired it because without that value
we would be comparing the fair market value of petitioner's 147.6
acres during the years in issue to the $10,000 petitioner paid
for 100 acres in 1961. Such a comparison inflates the
appreciated value of petitioner's farm. The value of the land
when petitioner acquired it is the amount for which she could
have sold the land if she did not farm it. We evaluate how much
the land appreciated while she farmed it.
Even if we had admitted the Caragol letter into evidence, it
would not have shown how much petitioner's land has appreciated
while she operated the farm. The record does not show the fair
market value of the 147.6 acres when petitioner acquired it and
there is no evidence about how Caragol made the estimate.
The Clackamas County Department of Assessment and Taxation
sent several letters to petitioner in 1994 which give the "real
market land value" of petitioner's land on October 14, 1994. The
letters do not define "real market land value", and we do not
know how it compares to fair market value.
4 The Court gave petitioner an opportunity to seek a
stipulation with respondent after trial relating to the admission
of documents such as this letter. The parties did not so
stipulate.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011