- 13 -
For purposes of this controversy, the estate contends that the
value reported on the amended returns is correct. Respondent
relies on his expert’s discounted value of $4,608,825, which
closely approximates the $4,835,300 value determined in the
notice of estate tax deficiency.
As already discussed, for all practical purposes, the facts
in the record are not in dispute. The parties’ experts have used
diverse judgmental factors which resulted in differing values’
being advanced by the parties. Accordingly, we proceed to
examine the parties’ experts’ opinions and methodologies.
A court, in approaching expert opinion evidence, is not
constrained to follow the opinion of any expert when the opinion
is contrary to the court’s own judgment. A court may adopt or
reject expert testimony. Helvering v. Natl. Grocery Co., supra
at 295; Silverman v. Commissioner, 538 F.2d 927, 933 (2d Cir.
1976), affg. T.C. Memo. 1974-285. Valuation cases are usually
6(...continued)
extent binding or probative, restricting an estate from
substituting a lower value without cogent proof that those
admissions are wrong. Estate of Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
312, 337-338 (1989); Estate of Pillsbury v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-425; Estate of McGill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1984-292. In that regard, the estate used the same expert for
purposes of the values claimed in the original and amended estate
tax returns. Ultimately, the valuation question we have
considered was framed by a factual record and the parties’
arguments in connection with their respective experts’ reports.
The value we have decided was larger than the value reported in
the original estate and gift tax returns, and so there was no
need to analyze whether the estate should have been bound by the
latter values.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011