- 22 -
and ultimately at the net asset value of Marrero Land as of the
valuation date, it is necessary to apply an absorption discount
to the stipulated aggregate value of those properties. To
support that position, the estate relies on its real estate
valuation expert Mr. Egan. According to respondent, no absorp-
tion discount is warranted. To support that position, respondent
relies on respondent's real estate valuation expert Mr. Guice and
a new theory advanced for the first time in respondent's answer-
ing brief.
We turn first to respondent's new theory. In respondent's
opening brief, respondent relied on Estate of Andrews v. Com-
missioner, 79 T.C. 938, 940 (1982), for the following two prop-
ositions: "Valuation of stock for tax purposes is a question of
fact", and "Where the property to be valued is stock that has
never been publicly traded, and there is no evidence of arms-
length sales of the stock, the value of the stock must be de-
termined indirectly." For the first time in respondent's an-
swering brief, respondent relies on Estate of Andrews v. Com-
missioner, supra for the following proposition: "Entity owned
real estate is ineligible for a market absorption discount in the
estate tax arena."4 Respondent appears to be arguing that Estate
4To support respondent's new theory, respondent also cites
Estate of Auker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-185, which in
turn relies on Estate of Andrews v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 938
(continued...)
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011