- 28 -
of the $9,312,992 present value of the Busch property at the time
of decedent’s death. The need for employing a discount is
dependent on whether decedent’s partial interest would have an
effect on marketability. See generally Propstra v. United
States, 680 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1982); Estate of Bright v. United
States, 658 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1981). Petitioner bears the
burden of showing that a discount is appropriate and the amount
of any such discount. See Rule 142(a); Estate of Van Horne v.
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 728 (1982), affd. 720 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir.
1983).
Both of petitioner’s appraisers selected a 40-percent
discount to adjust the value to account for decedent’s one-half
ownership in the Busch property. Petitioner argues that the
expertise they have offered and respondent’s failure to provide
expertise to address this point should result in the Court’s
adopting a 40-percent discount. Petitioner also makes the
argument that partition was not a viable option because of the
1982 experience of the Busch property owners in failing to obtain
a division of the property into less than a 100-acre parcel for
agricultural purposes.
Respondent counters that the highest and best use of the
property was residential development, and the estate and its
coowner chose to sell the entire property to a single purchaser.
Respondent also notes that among the sales offered as comparables
by petitioner’s experts some smaller parcels appeared to be no
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011