Geraldine H. Pearson - Page 17

                                       - 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                   

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011