- 16 -
earnings were decreasing in 1992 and 1993. Spiro’s testimony did
not convince us to revise MPI’s estimates.
MPI's appraisal is reasonable and appears credible. It is
cogent and persuasive evidence that the $25.80 per share value
reported on Mr. DiSanto’s estate tax return is overstated.4
Respondent offered no evidence of the value of MD&F stock other
than the redemption price in 1995, which we do not consider. See
paragraph A-2, above. We conclude that the fair market value of
186,177 shares of MD&F stock on November 26, 1992, was $4,375,160
($23.50 per share).
B. Value of Mrs. DiSanto’s Interest in Mr. DiSanto’s Estate
When She Died
1. Expectancy Interest
The parties disagree about the nature of Mrs. DiSanto’s
interest in her husband’s estate. Respondent contends that her
estate had a right to receive 121,823 shares of MD&F stock.
Petitioners contend that Mrs. DiSanto’s estate had only an
expectancy interest in Mr. DiSanto’s estate, and that the value
of her expectancy interest is less than the fair market value of
the minority block of MD&F stock that she was entitled to inherit
from Mr. DiSanto. Petitioners contend that Mrs. DiSanto had only
4 MPI’s appraisal is more favorable to petitioners than
their position on the estate tax returns of Mr. and Mrs. DiSanto.
Statements in a tax return are admissions unless overcome by
cogent evidence that they are wrong. Waring v. Commissioner, 412
F.2d 800, 801 (3d Cir. 1969), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo.
1968-126; Estate of Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 312, 337-338
(1989).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011