Estate of Lynn M. Rodgers, deceased, First National Bank of Commerce, Executor - Page 28




                                       - 28 -                                         

          discount with respect to real estate derives from the concept of            
          a blockage discount with respect to stock.  According to the                
          concept of a blockage discount with respect to stock, a block of            
          stock may be so large in relation to the actual sales on the                
          existing market that it could not be liquidated within a rea-               
          sonable period of time without depressing the market.  See, e.g.,           
          Phipps v. Commissioner, 127 F.2d 214, 216-217 (10th Cir. 1942),             
          affg. 43 B.T.A. 1010 (1941); Page v. Howell, 116 F.2d 158 (5th              
          Cir. 1940); Estate of Damon v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 108, 117               
          (1967); sec. 20.2031-2(e), Estate Tax Regs.  In the case of real            
          estate, the principle of supply and demand may warrant applica-             
          tion of an absorption discount.  That is because the disposition            
          within a reasonable period of time of similar real properties               
          would result in those properties being in direct competition with           
          each other and other similar real properties in the marketplace.            
          Such an abrupt increase in supply would depress the price for               
          which those properties would sell, assuming that demand were to             
          remain constant.  The element of competition, which is a price              
          depressant that is taken into account where similar real proper-            
          ties are valued as a whole, is not taken into account where such            
          properties are valued individually and the different values are             
          totaled.                                                                    
               In deciding whether to apply an absorption discount to the             
          stipulated value (viz., $20,366,470) of the remaining unimproved            





Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011