- 19 -
Events occurring subsequent to the valuation date are not
considered in determining FMV of the property, except to the
extent the events are reasonably foreseeable on the valuation
date. See First Natl. Bank of Kenosha v. United States, 763 F.2d
891, 893-894 (7th Cir. 1985); Estate of Spruill v. Commissioner,
88 T.C. at 1228. However, this Court has drawn a distinction
between subsequent events which affect the value of the property
and those which merely provide evidence of such value on the
valuation date. See Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101 T.C.
412, 431 (1993). Subsequent events which affect the value of the
property (such as the discovery of oil on the real property) can
be taken into account only if they are reasonably foreseeable on
the valuation date. Estate of Jung, supra. Conversely,
subsequent events which merely provide evidence of the value of
the property on the valuation date can be taken into account
regardless of whether they are foreseeable on the valuation date.
Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, supra. In considering such
events, appropriate adjustments must be made for changes in
inflation, general economic conditions and other similar factors.
Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, supra.
The mere fact that the comparables used by Lambert are
subsequent in time to the valuation date is not fatal to
Lambert's determination.2 See Estate of Smith v. Commissioner,
2 We are not discrediting Lambert's use of the comparables
(continued...)
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011