Estate of Arthur G. Scanlan, Deceased, Ruth B. Scanlan, Administratrix - Page 10

                                           - 10 -                                            
          Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587 (1993).  As stated by                     
          the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:  "federal law favors                   
          the admission of probative evidence.  In fact, (t)he Federal                       
          Rules and practice favor admission of evidence rather than                         
          exclusion if the proffered evidence has any probative value at                     
          all.  Doubts must be resolved in favor of admissibility."                          
          Sabatino v. Curtiss Natl. Bank, 415 F.2d 632, 635-636 (5th Cir.                    
          1969) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).                            
                We find the disputed evidence probative to our determination                 
          of value on the Valuation Dates.  The best indicator of the value                  
          of unlisted stock often is arm's-length sales of that stock at or                  
          around the time of valuation, Estate of Andrews v. Commissioner,                   
          79 T.C. 938, 940 (1982); Duncan Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner,                      
          73 T.C. 266, 276 (1979), and the disputed evidence reflects the                    
          mechanics of an arm’s-length sale between a willing buyer and                      
          willing, unrelated sellers.  Contrary to petitioner’s wishes, we                   
          will not turn our backs to this evidence simply because the dates                  
          of the offers and the redemption agreement were more than 1 year                   
          from the Valuation Dates.  See Jayson v. United States, 294 F.2d                   
          808, 810 (5th Cir. 1961) (3-1/2 years not too remote);                             
          Estate of Thompson v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 619, 628-629 (1987),                   
          revd. on other grounds 864 F.2d 1128 (4th Cir. 1989); see also                     
          Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 412, 430-432 (1993), and                  
          the cases cited therein.  This passage of time, as well as the                     
          financial data referenced by petitioner and the fact that the                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011