Bank One Corporation - Page 122

                                        -201-                                         
          no further explanation of the meaning of the term “fair market              
          value”, and the committee reports underlying the act were equally           
          silent, using the term without explaining it.  H. Rept. 767, 65th           
          Cong., 2d Sess. (1918), 1939-1 C.B. (Part 2) 86, 88.                        
               Over the years, judicial tribunals have defined the term by            
          enunciating certain standards which must be considered in passing           
          on a determination of fair market value.  First, in 1919, the               
          Advisory Tax Board (ATB) recommended an interpretation of the               
          term “fair market value”.  T.B.R. 57, 1 C.B. 40 (1919).  There,             
          the ATB stated that the term refers to a fair value that both a             
          buyer and a seller, who are acting freely and not under                     
          compulsion and who are reasonably knowledgeable about all                   
          material facts, would agree to in a market of potential buyers at           
          a fair and reasonable price.  Id.  Six years later, in 1925, the            
          Board of Tax Appeals (Board) stated that the buyer is considered            
          to be a willing buyer and that the seller is considered to be a             
          willing seller.  Hewes v. Commissioner, 2 B.T.A. 1279, 1282                 
          (1925); accord United States v. Cartwright, 411 U.S. 546, 550-551           
          (1973) (“The willing buyer-willing seller test of fair market               
          value is nearly as old as the federal income, estate, and gifts             
          taxes themselves”).  The Board also stated in that case that fair           
          market value must be determined without regard to any event that            
          occurs after the date of valuation.  Hewes v. Commissioner, supra           
          at 1282; accord First Natl. Bank v. United States, 763 F.2d 891,            






Page:  Previous  191  192  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  208  209  210  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011