- 32 -
involving a valuation-related issue. It is no mystery, therefore,
why valuation cases are ubiquitous. Today, valuation is a highly
sophisticated process. We cannot realistically expect that litigants
will, will be able to, or will want to, settle, rather than litigate,
their valuation controversies if the law relating to valuation is
vague or unclear. We must provide guidance on the manner in which we
resolve valuation issues so as to provide a roadmap by which the
Commissioner, taxpayers, and valuation practitioners can comprehend
the rules applicable thereto and use these rules to resolve their
differences. Clearly articulated rules will also assist appellate
courts in their review of our decisions in the event of an appeal.
We decide whether a market absorption discount applies to any of
the subject property, mindful that the estate bears the burden of
proof and that the presence of a market absorption discount is never
presumed. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933);
see Estate of Gilford v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 38, 57 (1987); see
also Rushton v. Commissioner, 498 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1974), affg.
60 T.C. 272 (1973); Maytag v. Commissioner, 187 F.2d 962 (10th Cir.
1951), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Staley v.
Commissioner, 41 B.T.A. 752, 775 (1940); Estate of Sawade v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-626, affd. 795 F.2d 45 (8th Cir. 1986).
The estate argues that a 15-percent market absorption discount
applies to each parcel of the subject property. The estate claims
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011