-3-
that no part of the purchase price is attributable to
goodwill. In the notice of deficiency, respondent
determined that petitioner overstated the fair market
value of the lease portfolio by $1,328,618, which amount
should be allocated to goodwill, going-concern value, or
other nonamortizable intangible assets.
The parties presented experts who valued
petitioner's lease portfolio. The difference between the
experts' valuations centers around the different discount
rates they used (respondent's expert used a 15.6-percent
discount rate, while petitioner's expert used an 11.5-
percent discount rate).
Held: Giving consideration to all the evidence
presented, 13 percent is determined to be the appropriate
discount rate.
Mark Alan Hager, Joseph Robert Goeke, Thomas C. Durham, David
Farrington Abbott, William Albert Schmalzl, Glenn A. Graff, Daniel
A. Dumezich, and Scott Gerald Husaby, for petitioner.
Lawrence C. Letkewicz, Dana Hundrieser, and Gary J. Merken,
for respondent.
CONTENTS
Page
General Findings ......................................... 6
Issue I. Removal of Asbestos-Containing Materials ..... 6
A. The Douglas Street Building ............... 7
B. Remodeling Plans .......................... 7
C. Use of Asbestos-Containing Materials in
the Douglas Street Building ............... 8
D. Federal Asbestos Guidelines ............... 8
E. Testing at the Douglas Street Building and
Decision To Remove Asbestos-Containing
Materials ................................. 10
F. Contractors and Work Performed ............ 13
G. Health Concerns ........................... 15
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