- 55 - one share applies equally to every other share in that class. In the case of real estate, however, a different rule applies. No two parcels of real estate are the same. Thus, the application of a single discount to various parcels of dissimilar real estate, which by its very nature ignores the uniqueness of each parcel, is usually inappropriate. See Estate of O'Keeffe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-210 (same rationale applied to works of art). Single rates of discount apply to each group of essentially similar assets. We analyze the assets at hand. When he died, the decedent owned the apartment buildings and various interests in numerous entities that owned real estate or interests in other entities that owned real estate. The estate and Mr. Shanker ask us to look through the various interests that the decedent owned at the time of his death and conclude that the decedent owned 58 parcels of real estate. This we will not do. The decedent structured his business affairs so that the subject property was owned by various entities, rather than by him personally. We will not now disregard the separate entities and treat the decedent as owning all the subject property. Because the entities were viable going concerns on the applicable valuation date, and neither a sale nor a liquidation of the entity-owned real estate was contemplated at that time, we conclude that the entity-owned real estate is ineligible for a market absorption discount. See, e.g., Estate of Andrews v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 938, 942 (1982), and thePage: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011