John T. Talkington and Margaret K. Talkington - Page 37

                                       - 37 -                                         

          however, in his report he concluded that the highest and best use           
          for the Bates Center was for use in conjunction with the                    
          adjoining church property and that the Bates Center's location              
          made commercial uses not feasible.                                          
               Dr. Friedman determined the fair market value of the Bates             
          Center on September 23, 1992, to be $170,000.  Dr. Friedman                 
          placed greater weight on the sales comparison method in                     
          determining his final estimate of the Bates Center's fair market            
          value.                                                                      
               A.   Bates Center Land                                                 
               Under the sales comparison method, Mr. Cantrell determined             
          the fair market value of the Bates Center land (which was 50,507            
          square feet) to be $177,000 based on a value of $3.50 per square            
          foot.  Under the sales comparison method, Dr. Friedman determined           
          the fair market value of the Bates Center land to be $45,000                
          based on a value of $1 per square foot for the five lots, which             
          comprised 39,298 square feet, and $0.43 per square foot for the             
          excess lot, which was 11,209 square feet.                                   
               Mr. Cantrell compared the Bates Center land to five other              
          comparables which were as follows:                                          



               12(...continued)                                                       
          indicated that the zoning of the Bates Center could be changed,             
          petitioners did not call him as a witness.  We infer that his               
          testimony would not have been favorable to petitioners.  Wichita            
          Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946),            
          affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).                                        



Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011