- 56 -
2032A(e)(8). The validity of the estate’s election was
stipulated by the parties. Thus, the only issue in Estate of
Hughan was how the farm's value was to be calculated under the
multiple factor method of section 2032A(e)(8).
In Estate of Hughan, the parties agreed that the valuation
was to be governed by the method of valuation described in
section 2032A(e)(8). In Estate of Strickland v. Commissioner, 92
T.C. at 33 n.12, we stated that “If sec. 2032A(e)(8) is used for
valuation purposes, none of the documentation requirements of
sec. 2032A(e)(7)(A) would be required.”21 Valuation disputes
under section 2032A(e)(8) will be settled or litigated in a
manner similar to that used in valuation disputes under section
2031. See Estate of Hughan v. Commissioner, supra; sec. 20.2031-
1(b), Estate Tax Regs. (“All relevant facts and elements of value
as of the applicable valuation date shall be considered in every
case.”).
In contrast to Estate of Hughan, and as discussed in detail
above, respondent did not apply section 20.2032A-4(b)(2)(i),
Estate Tax Regs., and set the stage for a valuation dispute under
21 In Estate of Hughan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-275,
documentation with respect to the sec. 2032A(e)(8) valuation was
presented and relied upon after the notice of election was filed.
For example, the expert witness reports bearing on the farmland’s
value under sec. 2032A(e)(8) that were introduced into evidence
at trial were dated between 2 and 4 weeks prior to the date of
trial.
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011