- 20 -
his written report nor his oral testimony did Mr. Knoll state
that he performed any market analysis or interviewed any
developers to determine the expectations of profit required to
undertake a project such as the hydroelectric facility.
Although Mr. Knoll is of the opinion that at least a portion
of the difference between UtilCo’s purchase price of $32,500,000
and the $24,000,000 “acquisition cost/rehabilitation cost” is
attributable to going concern value, he has no opinion as to what
that portion is, except as an inseparable portion of the value of
a package of at least nine intangibles, including flowage rights
and easements. His opinion that UtilCo acquired going concern
value is of no help to us because he is unable to distinguish the
going concern value from the value of other intangible assets,
such as flowage rights and easements that are specifically set
forth as bill of sale assets.
Mr. Knoll testified in rebuttal to Mr. Moody. His rebuttal
testimony failed to persuade us that Mr. Moody made any error in
arriving at his opinion as to the fair market value of the bill
of sale assets.
III. Conclusion
We find that the fair market value of the bill of sale
assets was $65,000,000. As a result, we conclude that UtilCo
acquired no going concern value. We sustain petitioner’s
assignment of error.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011