- 11 - offer was for all of Eatel’s stock, are factors that we must consider in harmonizing the offering and redemption prices with the value of the subject shares on the Valuation Dates. We recognize that the value of the subject shares must be determined as of the Valuation Dates, and that the probative weight of future events must be discounted accordingly. Sec. 20.2031-1(b), Estate Tax Regs.; see also Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, supra at 430-432; Estate of Newhouse v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 193, 218 (1990). As this Court stated in Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, supra at 431-432: for purposes of determining fair market value, we believe it appropriate to consider sales of properties occurring subsequent to the valuation date if the properties involved are indeed comparable to the subject properties. * * * Of course, appropriate adjustments must be made to take account of differences between the valuation date and the dates of the later-occurring events. For example, there may have been changes in general inflation, people’s expectations with respect to the industry, performances of the various components of the business, technology, and the provisions of tax law that might affect fair market values * * * [between the valuation date and the subsequent date of sale]. Although any such changes must be accounted for in determining the evidentiary weight to be given to the later-occurring events, those changes ordinarily are not justification for ignoring the later- occurring events (unless other comparables offer significantly better matches to the property being valued). [Citations and quotation marks omitted.]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