Ina F. Knight - Page 19




                                        - 19 -                                          
          of its assets in bonds, and investors in the bond fund could not              
          influence investment policy, the partnership “could be similar to             
          a closed-end bond fund”.8  He estimated that a lack of control                
          discount of 10 percent applies by evaluating the difference                   
          between the trading value and the net asset values on October 21,             
          1994, of 10 publicly traded closed-end bond funds.  The 10 funds              
          that Conklin chose are not comparable to the Knight family                    
          partnership.9  We find unconvincing his use of data from                      
          noncomparable entities to increase the discount.  However, on                 




               8  A publicly traded closed-end bond fund owns a fixed                   
          number of bonds.  The net asset value of those bonds held by a                
          closed-end fund is published.  The value of an interest in a                  
          closed-end fund may trade at a premium (i.e., above the net asset             
          value per share) or at a discount (i.e., below the net asset                  
          value per share).                                                             
               9  Only the Nuveen Municipal Value Fund had assets that were             
          comparable to the partnership.  No hard and fast rule dictates                
          the number of comparables required, but courts have rejected use              
          of one comparable, see Estate of Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.                
          312 (1989); Estate of Rodgers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-               
          129; Klukwan, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-402; Crowley              
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-636, affd. on other grounds 962              
          F.2d 1077 (1st Cir. 1992); Higgins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                
          1990-103; Dennis v. United States, 70 AFTR 2d 92-5946, 92-5949,               
          92-2 USTC par. 50,498 (E.D. Va. 1992), unless it is compelling,               
          see also 885 Inv. Co. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 156, 167-168                   
          (1990); Estate of Fawcett v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 889, 899-900               
          (1975); Clark v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-402.  The                      
          comparability is not compelling here.  First, the value of the                
          partnership’s interest in the two bond funds was about $1.1                   
          million; the value of the assets in the Nuveen Municipal Value                
          Fund was nearly $1.9 billion.  Second, 51 percent of the                      
          partnership assets were invested in two tax-exempt municipal bond             
          funds; the Nuveen Municipal Value Fund held no real property.                 





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011