- 25 -
the fair market value of Seminole's net assets on the applicable
valuation date were greater than their value as integral parts of
Seminole's business, a hypothetical buyer would consider buying
the estate's shares at a price that hinged on Seminole's net
asset value. Given the fact that Seminole owned some highly
valuable assets, we would like to have seen a net asset value
analysis.
Third, Mr. Tack assumed that Max Weitzenhoffer owned the
largest block of Seminole stock on the valuation date and that
the per-share value of the estate's shares equaled the per-share
value of all other shares. We disagree with both of these
assumptions. For starters, the parties stipulated and we have
found as a fact that the estate owned the largest block of
Seminole stock; i.e., Max Weitzenhoffer and the estate
respectively owned 17.30 and 19.86 percent of Seminole's
outstanding stock. Although Mr. Smith testified that he and Max
Weitzenhoffer considered Max the owner of the shares of his
mother, Clara, because she was very old and Max was an only
child, we decline to do likewise. It is indisputable that
Clara's shares were owned by her, and it is inappropriate to
attribute her shares to him. In addition to the well-settled
rule that stock is valued without the use of family attribution,
see Propstra v. United States, 680 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1982);
Estate of Bright v. United States, 658 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1981);
Estate of Mellinger v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 26 (1999); Estate
of Andrews v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. at 953, Mr. Smith testified
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011