- 7 -
closely held corporation that corporation’s value as of
decedent’s date of death is key to our holding on valuation. The
parties also disagree as to the types and amounts of discounts to
be applied to the value found by the Court.3 The evidence
consists of a stipulation of facts, along with attached exhibits,
and a transcript containing the testimony of one fact witness.
In addition, each of the parties has offered an expert’s opinion,
ostensibly to assist the Court in its consideration of the facts
and conclusion as to the fair market value of the controverted
interest.
A. The Question of the Burden of Proof
In its posttrial brief the estate for the first time
interposed section 74914 and argued that the burden of proof
should shift to respondent with respect to the remaining
valuation question. The following statement is at the heart of
the estate’s contention:
It is respectfully submitted that the combined
testimony of Mr. Deputy and Mr. Dorman[5] plus the
Stipulation of Facts and the contents of the associated
exhibits is credible evidence within the meaning of
3 The parties have agreed to discounts with respect to the
interest in the family limited partnership.
4 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect as of the date of decedent’s death, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure,
unless otherwise indicated.
5 Mr. Deputy is one of the estate’s coexecutors, and Mr.
Dorman is the estate’s expert witness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011