Richard J. Salem and Eileen L. Salem - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         

          adjustments will be made.  Estate of Gilford v. Commissioner,               
          supra.  We note, however, that counsel for respondent did not see           
          fit to cross-examine petitioners' expert during the trial of this           
          case.                                                                       
               Petitioners' expert used the comparable sales method in                
          arriving at a value for the property.  The "comparable sales"               
          method functions by:  (1) Locating properties as physically                 
          similar as possible to the subject property which (2) have been             
          sold on the open market in noncollusive, nonforced sales for cash           
          or cash equivalent, within (3) a reasonable time of the date for            
          which a value of the subject property is desired.  Once these               
          properties are located, those features of the subject property              
          which are most pertinent to its value are compared to those same            
          features on the comparable properties.  Since no two sales and no           
          two properties can be identical, the values of those features of            
          the comparable properties which are relevant to the value of the            
          subject property are adjusted until they are equivalent to those            
          of the subject property.  This Court has found the comparable               
          sales valuation method to be a reasonable one and has used it in            
          the past.  Wolfsen Land & Cattle Co. v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1,            
          19 (1979).                                                                  
               Petitioners' Expert Report                                             
               Petitioners' expert appraised the subject property in 1994.            
          In his report, he concluded that the value of the property as of            





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011