- 5 -
presented any persuasive reason why we should reconsider or
change our memorandum opinion. To the extent that petitioner
wanted either to strengthen its argument or to otherwise expand
on it, it should have done so before we released our memorandum
opinion.
Petitioner also chose not to present additional evidence at
trial to support the result that it desired. Instead, it decided
to rest its case primarily on the opinion of Mr. Chaffe. We
disagreed with Mr. Chaffe, and we found both his testimony and
his report to be of no value. Rather than holding for respondent
on the grounds that petitioner failed to meet its burden of
proof, see Rule 142; Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 115 (1933),
we determined values for the subject shares based on the limited
record.3 It was because of the sparse record that we were unable
to apply the Mandelbaum factors to determine the marketability
discount.4 Instead, as stated in our memorandum opinion, we
determined the relevant values (which took into account a
marketability and minority discount, as well as the change in
circumstances from the date of the redemption agreement to the
date of the decedent’s death) in light of the imperfect record,
3 At trial, respondent did not call any witnesses, and she
did not introduce any exhibits (other than the 5 exhibits to
which the parties stipulated before trial).
4 In contrast to the instant record, the record in
Mandelbaum was "replete with charts, graphs, factual data,
testimony, and expert opinion." Mandelbaum v. Commissioner,
supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011