- 18 - 186 (1994), and authorities cited therein. Finally, because valuation necessarily results in an approximation, the figure at which we arrive need not be directly attributable to specific testimony if it is within the range of values that may properly be arrived at from consideration of all the evidence. See Silverman v. Commissioner, supra at 933; Alvary v. United States, 302 F.2d 790, 795 (2d Cir. 1962). Petitioners’ Expert’s Reports Petitioners rely on two reports prepared by Ms. Walker as the primary evidence in support of their position. Ms. Walker received a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. She is a Chartered Financial Analyst and a member of the American Society of Appraisers, holding the Accredited Senior Appraiser (business valuation) designation. Ms. Walker prepared her first report several years before trial; a copy of that report was submitted with petitioners’ gift tax returns for the year in issue.9 Ms. Walker prepared a revised report shortly before trial, to respond to respondent’s criticism of Ms. Walker’s failure to include an “income-based” 9 Although Ms. Walker’s original report concluded that the overall value of the gifts was $211.20 per share, petitioners reported a 5 percent higher value, $221.75 per share, on their gift tax returns. Mr. Wall testified that the reason for this was his accountants’ advice, based on their experience with respondent’s local personnel, that the lack of marketability and nonvoting stock discounts determined by Ms. Walker “might better be a little more conservative”.Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011