- 40 -                                         
          Respondent asserts that because of the different land uses and              
          characteristics of decedent's lands, section 20.2032A-4(d),                 
          Estate Tax Regs., requires that the timberland, standing timber,            
          and pastureland all be separately valued.  Respondent further               
          asserts that because the leases of "comparable land" that                   
          petitioner presented and relies upon are leases of only bare                
          timberland which do not include the rental value of land                    
          containing standing timber or pasture, the leases are totally               
          irrelevant to the valuation of standing timber or pastureland               
          under section 2032A(e)(7).                                                  
               In adopting and explaining the "qualified woodland" election           
          in section 2032A(e)(13), Congress explicitly provided that the              
          value of the timber would not be "segmented" and separately                 
          valued as a crop:  Congress explained that the timber would be              
          included in the rent capitalization value of the land where the             
          underlying lease incorporated the right to grow and cut timber.             
               In short, the estate's timber is already incorporated into             
          the rent capitalization value because the base rent already                 
          includes the right to cut the timber.  Notably, the parties have            
          stipulated that the standard timber leases covering the five                
          leased tracts are precisely the type contemplated by the                    
          "qualified woodland" election.  Each of them is a lease that                
          covers the harvesting of timber grown during the term of the                
          lease.  We reject respondent’s argument that the conspicuously              
Page:  Previous   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011