Estate of Eldon L. Auker, Deceased, Kimberlee J. Auker, Independent Personal Representative - Page 55

                                       - 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 the           







Page:  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