- 10 -
account, and focusing too much on the view of one of these
persons, to the neglect of the view of the other, is contrary to
a determination of fair market value. See, e.g., Pabst Brewing
Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Estate of Scanlan v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-331; Estate of Cloutier v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-49. Fair market value reflects the highest and best
use of the property on the valuation date. Fair market value
takes into account special uses that are realistically available
because of the property's adaptability to a particular business.
See Mitchell v. United States, 267 U.S. 341, 344-345 (1925);
Symington v. Commissioner, supra at 896; Stanley Works & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 389, 400 (1986). The reasonable and
objective possibilities for the property control the valuation
thereof. See United States v. Meadow Brook Club, 259 F.2d 41, 45
(2d Cir. 1958); Stanley Works & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at
400.
Respondent contends that the fair market value of Wolverine
Tower on the date of the alleged gift9 was the sale price of $9
million. Respondent argues Arbor's expert supports this
determination. Arbor offered the testimony of Donald Wieme
9Respondent contends the date of the gift was Dec. 31, 1992,
the date the contract was signed. Petitioner contends the date
of the gift was Feb. 25, 1993, the date the contract closed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011