- 23 -                                         
          FNBW                                                                        
               As with JFI, there were no actual arm’s-length sales of FNBW           
          stock, and therefore all of the experts relied on less direct               
          methods of valuing FNBW.13                                                  
               Petitioner presented the testimony and expert reports of Mr.           
          Hitt (who had valued FNBW for the estate tax return) and Mr. Egan           
          (who had valued FNBW in preparation for trial).  Respondent                 
          presented the testimony and expert report of Charles F. Haywood,            
          a professor at the University of Kentucky.  As noted above, the             
          parties stipulated that Mr. Hitt and Mr. Egan were qualified                
          appraisers.  At trial, petitioner objected to the qualifications            
          of Mr. Haywood but ultimately withdrew the objection.  We found             
          all of the reports to be useful, although all required                      
          adjustments to address certain flaws, in the Court’s view.                  
               Mr. Hitt’s Report                                                      
               Mr. Hitt used an exclusively earnings-based approach to                
          value FNBW, combining three methods:  Price to earnings (P/E)               
          ratio, price to equity (P/Eqt) ratio, and capitalized future                
          earnings.                                                                   
               13 There were some actual sales of the stock of FNBW in 1990           
          and 1991, but all three experts agree that none of them were at             
          arm’s length.  In addition, there was an actual sale of stock in            
          1985 that may or may not have been at arm’s length, but we find             
          that it was not within a reasonable time of the valuation date in           
          this case.                                                                  
Page:  Previous   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011