- 15 -
and bearing in mind that the valuation of that stock interest is
a question of fact, Estate of Bonner v. United States, 84 F.3d
196, 197 (5th Cir. 1996); Estate of Andrews v. Commissioner, 79
T.C. 938, 940 (1982), on which petitioner has the burden of
proof, Rule 142(a).9
The determination of the value of closely held stock is a
matter of judgment, rather than of mathematics. Hamm v. Commis-
sioner, 325 F.2d 934, 940 (8th Cir. 1963), affg. T.C. Memo. 1961-
347. Moreover, since valuation is necessarily an approximation,
it is not required that the value that we determine be one as to
which there is specific testimony, provided that it is within the
range of figures that properly may be deduced from the evidence.
Silverman v. Commissioner, 538 F.2d at 933; Anderson v. Commis-
sioner, 250 F.2d at 249.
The regulations define fair market value for purposes of the
Federal estate tax as "the price at which the property would
change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller,
neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both
8(...continued)
value, like the one that is presented here, are generally more
properly resolved through the give and take of settlement negoti-
ations by the parties, rather than adjudication by the Court.
Buffalo Tool & Die Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C.
441, 451 (1980).
9 All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure. All section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code in effect at the date of decedent's death.
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