- 19 -
account for litigation hazards along with the shortcomings
previously discussed, we conclude that petitioners’ expert’s
conclusions should be disregarded.
Having largely rejected10 both expert reports, we must
ascertain the value of the Canal based on the remaining evidence
in the record. With respect to the multiple transfers of the
Canal between the DAK partners, respondent's expert conceded that
they were not at arm's length, and for that reason we believe
they should be disregarded. Likewise, with respect to the tax
sale for $100, there is no evidence in the record that the
auction was publicized or otherwise reached a wide market. We
therefore conclude that it was more akin to a "forced" sale and
should be disregarded. Mr. Hardy abandoned the property rather
than pay the accumulated tax liability, which he recalled was
between $2,000 and $3,000.11 Mr. Hardy was highly knowledgeable
regarding the Canal, and we believe his actions have some
probative value with respect to its worth. In addition, there is
no evidence that the value of the Canal changed significantly
between the time of Mr. Hardy's abandonment and the later
10 We accept respondent’s expert’s contention in her report
that the tax-assessed value of the subject property “cannot be
ignored as an indication of value”.
11 The deed resulting from the tax sale indicated that the
taxes due for 1985 through 1987 totaled only $51.39.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011