- 203 - purposes and denying minority discount to voting stock because of swing vote potential). A comparison of the marketable minority values for True Oil proposed by Mr. Kimball and by respondent follows: Kimball reports’ Respondent’s net Valuation guideline company asset value method date method January 1, 1993 $37,253,000 $35,685,000 June 4, 1994 $34,623,000 N/A June 30, 1994 $34,623,000 $30,780,000 We have acknowledged the merits of both parties’ valuation methods and believe that some combination of the two methods would most accurately measure True Oil’s marketable minority value. However, Mr. Kimball’s values would require adjustments for our stated concerns, which are likely to result in higher values. As it is, we need not compute Mr. Kimball’s adjusted guideline company values because respondent’s marketable minority values (shown above) are less than Mr. Kimball’s as of January 1, 1993, and June 30, 1994. Thus, we accept respondent’s marketable minority values as of January 1, 1993, and June 30, 1994, and treat them as concessions. Respondent did not determine True Oil’s marketable minority value as of June 30, 1994, because he treated Dave True as owning a controlling interest at death. However, we treat Dave True’s 38.47-percent interest in True Oil as a minority interest, and wePage: Previous 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011