- 19 -
680 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1982). Petitioner bears the burden of
showing that a discount is appropriate and the amount of any
discount. See Rule 142(a); Estate of Van Horne v. Commissioner,
78 T.C. 728 (1982), affd. 720 F.2d 1114 (9th Cir. 1983).
The parties provided experts’ opinions regarding the
appropriate discounts for the three properties. Petitioner’s
primary expert used a variety of methods, including a survey of
companies purchasing and selling partnership interests, a 10-
factor fractional interest analysis, and a comparable sales
approach. The three methods resulted in similar discount
amounts, ranging between 29 percent and 35 percent. Petitioner’s
expert concluded that the appropriate discounts were as follows:
Kmart property–-35 percent, Walgreen property--30 percent, and
Wells Fargo property--35 percent. Petitioner’s rebuttal expert
reviewed respondent’s expert report on the Kmart property and
opined that the discount for that property should be 35.4
percent. Respondent’s expert looked only at the cost to
partition the properties, then increased the amount of the
discounts for unspecified costs. His report opined that the
discounts should be as follows: Kmart property-–10 percent,
Walgreen property--10 percent, and Wells Fargo property--20
percent.
Accordingly, respondent, through his expert, agrees that
some discount is appropriate. Thomson calculated the partition
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011