- 8 - The CompUSA prospectus (item number 5 above), on the other hand, is not relevant to our determination of the value of the stock at issue. This document describes a public offering of SWI stock almost 2-1/2 years after the valuation date. Based upon the record of this case, we cannot find that the public offering was sufficiently foreseeable by the parties on the valuation date. Accord- ingly, we will sustain petitioners' objection insofar as the CompUSA prospectus is concerned. We reject petitioners' argument that the items in question should not be admitted into evidence because Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, supra, and similar cases only allow consideration of subsequent arm's-length sales of the subject property. As noted above, the first two items describe conditions existing prior to the valuation date. Assuming that petitioners' restrictive reading of Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, supra, is correct, the next two items fit comfortably within that reading. The confidential private placement memorandum (item number 4) was in fact prepared in connection with an arm's-length sale of SWI stock. Similarly, the valuation of a noncontrolling equity interest in SWI (item number 3) was requested by the board of directors to ascertain the price at which SWI stock would change hands in an arm's-length sale. Accordingly, we find that these documents arePage: 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