- 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