- 52 -
Respondent criticizes Wheeler's method of determining the
after value of the property. Respondent argues that Wheeler did
not locate any comparable sales closer to the property at issue
than comparables from Montana. At trial, however, respondent's
own expert testified that he, like Wheeler, could not find any
comparables within "a long distance of Sheridan." Boyett used
comparables from sales in Colorado, Montana, Idaho, and in the
Yellowstone Park vicinity of Wyoming.
Respondent also argues that a 55-percent reduction to the
value of the easement property is excessive. Respondent bases
this argument primarily on Boyett's conclusion that the 300 AUM's
restrictions under the easement did not affect the after value of
the property at all. We find Boyett's analysis to be flawed.
Boyett's conclusion was based on the following: (1) A discussion
with MacCarty, the former ranch manager, during which time
MacCarty told him that the easement's restriction of grazing to
300 AUM's did not affect the after value of the property, because
Flying H did not intend to run more than 300 AUM's on the
easement property, and (2) his own calculations. First, we note
that Boyett's conversation with MacCarty regarding petitioners'
intentions for the use of the property is irrelevant in
determining the highest and best use. Dorsey v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1990-242. Value is not affected by whether an owner
actually intends to put, or has put, the property to its highest
and best use before the date of donation. Moreover, were we to
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011