- 28 -
presumption of blockage. See Maytag v. Commissioner, 187 F.2d
962 (10th Cir. 1951), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court;
du Pont v. Commissioner, 2 T.C. 246, 255 (1943); Safe Deposit &
Trust Co. v. Commissioner, supra. Blockage is not a law of
economics, a principle of law, or a rule of evidence. Blockage
is a question of fact. See Estate of Sawade v. Commissioner,
supra; Estate of Christie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1974-95.
"If the price obtainable for a block of stock is influenced by
the size of the block, the existence and extent of this influence
must be proven." Estate of Christie v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this regard. See Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); sec.
20.2031-2(e), Estate Tax Regs.
In valuing a block of stock, we are not required to assume
that the entire block was dumped on the market at one time on the
valuation date. Rather, the inquiry must be directed to the
effect upon the market based on the assumption that the block was
being fed out into the market during a reasonable period of time.
See Estate of Van Horne v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 728, 742 (1982),
affd. 720 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir. 1983); Avery v. Commissioner, 3
T.C. 963, 971 (1944); Estate of Sawade v. Commissioner, supra.
What is a reasonable period of time depends upon all the facts
and circumstances. See Estate of Sawade v. Commissioner, supra.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011