J.C. Shepherd - Page 37




                                       - 37 -                                         
               We hold and conclude, therefore, that Lipscomb has fairly              
          and reasonably determined the net present value of the lease                
          income stream to be $566,773.                                               
               2.  Present Value of the Reversion                                     
               Lipscomb’s income capitalization approach assumes that the             
          leased land will have a January 1, 2023, pretax reversion value             
          of $4,127,687.  Lipscomb then purports to arrive at a January 1,            
          2023, after-tax value of the reversion by assuming a 35-percent             
          tax on $4,127,687, and then discounting this after-tax amount to            
          1991 present value using an 8-percent discount rate.  Nothing in            
          the record explains Lipscomb’s derivation of his estimated                  
          January 1, 2023, pretax conversion value.22  Furthermore, we                


               22 On brief, petitioner alleges that to arrive at the                  
          $4,127,687 value for the reversion of the leased land, Lipscomb             
          applied a growth rate of 4 percent to comparable 1991 values.               
          The parts of the record that petitioner’s brief cites in support            
          of this proposition, however, do not yield this information, nor            
          have we discovered it elsewhere in the record.  Statements in               
          briefs do not constitute evidence.  See Rule 143(b).  Even if we            
          were to assume arguendo that petitioner’s representation about              
          Lipscomb’s derivation of the reversion value were accurate, the             
          record is inadequate to allow us to identify with certainty the             
          comparables Lipscomb used for this purpose or to meaningfully               
          evaluate the appropriateness of either the comparables or the               
          assumed growth rate that petitioner alleges Lipscomb employed in            
          his analysis.                                                               
               If we were to assume arguendo that the comparables in                  
          question were the same comparables Lipscomb used in his sales               
          comparison approach, the facts disclosed in his report and                  
          testimony are inadequate to persuade us that those comparables              
          were determined appropriately.  As previously discussed, using              
          the sales comparison approach, Lipscomb determined that                     
          petitioner’s interest in the leased land had a 1991 fair market             
          value of $958,473.  Lipscomb derived this number by applying a              
          45-percent marketability discount to what he deemed to be                   
          comparable sales.  Lipscomb testified that he determined the 45-            
                                                             (continued...)           


Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011