- 180 -
roughly equal “Return Value/Book Value[s]”, but have continued to
litigate the values of the subject interests in other companies,
proposing combined discounts exceeding 40 percent in most cases.
Petitioners also presented rebuttal reports and expert testimony
addressing Mr. Gustavson’s criticisms of the Kimball and Lax
reports. Finally, petitioners devoted large portions of their
reply brief to rebutting respondent’s posttrial valuation
positions. All this indicates that petitioners continued to
marshal their evidence and arguments to support valuation
discounts greater than those reflected in the “Current IRS
Value[s]” figures. Petitioners have not persuaded us that they
would have presented their case any differently if respondent had
made no statements regarding “Current IRS Value[s]”.
Accordingly, we find that respondent’s disavowal or clarification
of his pretrial statements of “Current IRS Value[s]” did not
prejudice petitioners’ ability to present valuation evidence.
B. Role of Burdens and Presumptions in Cases at Hand
Petitioners have also argued that if respondent is allowed
to revert to the adjustments reflected in the deficiency notices,
respondent should have the burden of proof on any adjustment that
increased the value of a transferred interest to more than the
“Current IRS Value”. Moreover, petitioners contend that
respondent did not sustain such burden, because he did not offer
any expert testimony regarding the value of the subject
interests. We disagree.
Page: Previous 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011