Estate of Marcia P. Hoffman, deceased, Elisabeth Hoffman, Personal Representative - Page 25




                                       - 25 -                                         
          companies, and he was unable to provide any type of business                
          connection between the comparables and Clubside.  Furthermore,              
          Mr. Bishop lacked knowledge of the line of business that some of            
          the companies were engaged in.  Mr. Bishop’s failure to                     
          adequately explain in his report or at trial how the companies              
          used were comparable to Clubside entitles his findings to little            
          weight.  See, e.g., Estate of Fleming v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.           
          1997-484.  Overall, the comparable companies used by Mr. Bishop             
          were riskier in nature and did not accurately reflect the                   
          financial position of Clubside.19                                           
               As of the valuation date, the Clubside promissory notes                
          payable to decedent and Hoffman Associates were unsecured and had           
          over 17 years remaining until the date of maturity.  Interest was           
          to accrue until the date of maturity; thus, Clubside was not                
          under any obligation to make interest or principal payments until           
          January 1, 2012.  Clubside had other promissory notes, and there            


               19Mr. Bishop’s valuation was questionable in another area as           
          well.  Application of a 22.5-percent rate of return to value the            
          promissory notes produces valuation amounts below those                     
          determined by Mr. Bishop.  For example, the $17,022 and $27,358             
          values determined by Mr. Bishop would have been $12,950 and                 
          $20,813, respectively, based on a 22.5-percent rate of return               
          over 17 years and 4 months based on maturity values of $436,464             
          and $701,487, respectively.  Application of the values determined           
          by Mr. Bishop reflects either:  (1) A rate of return of 20.58               
          percent over 17 years and 4 months; or (2) a rate of return of              
          22.5 percent over 16 years.  We note that we have calculated                
          these figures using basic present value formulae.  See, e.g.,               
          Spera v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-225 n.2, supplemented by             
          T.C. Memo. 1998-299.                                                        





Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011