- 25 -
ment, which was supported by the record in Estate of Andrews,
that there was no reasonable prospect of liquidating the real
estate properties involved there. See id. We did not hold in
Estate of Andrews that, as a matter of law, no adjustment is
allowable, inter alia, for blockage (i.e., an absorption dis-
count) with respect to the corporate-owned real properties there
involved.6
Similarly, our holding in Estate of Auker v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1998-185, that "the entity-owned real estate is
ineligible for a market absorption discount" was based on the
facts that
the entities were viable going concerns on the applica-
ble valuation date, and neither a sale nor a liquida-
tion of the entity-owned real estate was contemplated
at that time * * *.
We did not hold in Estate of Auker v. Commissioner, supra, that,
as a matter of law, no absorption discount may be applied in
determining the fair market value of entity-owned real estate.
To the extent that respondent is arguing under respondent's
new theory that, as a matter of law, "Entity owned real estate is
ineligible for a market absorption discount in the estate tax
arena", we reject that argument. In determining the fair market
6Nor did we hold in Estate of Andrews v. Commissioner,
supra, that, as a matter of law, no adjustment is allowable,
inter alia, for so-called built-in capital gains tax. See Estate
of Davis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 530 (1998).
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