- 27 -
Jefferson/Keeler as factors indicating a higher discount. For
the reasons discussed above (including Mr. Schroeder’s
demonstrated incomplete knowledge of the potential loan
impairment and the pending bankruptcy), we find Mr. Schroeder’s
reliance on these factors unpersuasive.12
Mr. Schroeder also considered seven prior transactions
involving shares of RBI stock as supporting a higher lack of
marketability discount. Six of those transactions, however,
occurred between 1990 and 1994--more than 3 years before
decedent’s death; the remaining transaction occurred in January
1998. Mr. Schroeder provided no specifics about the prior
transactions, and we have no basis for concluding they were at
arm’s length. See Rev. Rul. 59-60, sec. 4.02(g), 1959-1 C.B.
237, 241-242. Furthermore, Mr. Schroeder does not indicate
whether or to what extent the information from the prior
transactions affected his overall conclusion of an appropriate
lack of marketability discount. Instead, he states equivocally
that the existence of prior transactions is “usually a factor
that would decrease the lack of marketability discount[;]
however, the prior transactions have been at prices which are
12 Moreover, Mr. Schroeder has failed to adequately explain
why he considered this factor both in reaching an aggregate value
for RBI stock and in calculating a lack of marketability
discount. We are unpersuaded that Mr. Schroeder’s double
counting of this factor would not lead to understating the value
of decedent’s shares.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011