- 33 -
that a sale of all this property at once would depress the market and
force a seller to accept less for the property than the seller would
otherwise receive if the properties were sold separately over time.
Respondent counters that a market absorption discount should not be
applied in this case. Respondent claims that the estate has failed
to show that skilled brokers could not sell all the subject property
in a reasonable time. Respondent claims that the apartment buildings
could be sold to one buyer to allow the buyer to take advantage of
economies of scale. Respondent claims that the economic condition of
the subject market has no bearing on the application of a market
absorption discount under the facts herein because the market's
economic condition has been taken into account in ascertaining the
parties' stipulated values.
We do not agree with either party in all regards. Fair market
value is a question of fact, and the trier of fact must weigh all
relevant evidence of value and draw appropriate inferences.
Commissioner v. Scottish Am. Inv. Co., 323 U.S. 119, 123-125 (1944);
Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 294 (1938);
Symington v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 892, 896 (1986); Zmuda v.
Commissioner, 79 T.C. 714, 726 (1982), affd. 731 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir.
1984). Fair market value is measured on the applicable valuation
date, which, in this case, is the date the decedent died. See
Estate of Proios v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-442; see also
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011