- 23 -
it is appropriate to note that on brief respondent contends that
the fair market value of the Quito Property is $450,000 less than
the amount petitioner reported on the estate tax return. See
supra table 2.
At trial, both sides presented the testimony of expert
witnesses to establish the fair market values of the Subject
Properties. It would not serve any useful purpose to make a
detailed analysis of the testimony of these experts to explain
item by item the extent to which we agree or disagree with their
analysis. Valuation is not a precise science, and the
determination of the fair market value of property as of a given
day is a question of fact (see Kaplan v. Commissioner, 43 T.C.
663, 665 (1965)), to be resolved on the basis of the entire
record (see McShain v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. at 1004), and
without necessarily being bound by the opinions of the expert
witnesses. See Penn v. Commissioner, 219 F.2d 18, 21 (9th Cir.
1955), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court. However, we do
note considerations that we have taken into account in our
determination and explain how we reach our conclusions. See
Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 412, 424 (1993).
Before we proceed to our analyses of the values of the
Subject Properties, it may be appropriate to briefly discuss the
expert witnesses.
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