- 12 - considering the nature of the business; and (5) did not take into account $90,000 of liabilities. We note that decedent and her husband died within a short time of each other. Furthermore, most of the errors complained of by the estate are orthographic. While they might reflect that Mr. Sherman’s appraisal needed proofreading, they do not show that the value is erroneous. As for the posited errors which appear to be more substantive in nature, again, they do not show that the value, itself, is erroneous. The purported $90,000 in liabilities was unknown and unforeseeable at the time of decedent’s death and cannot be used for valuation purposes. See, e.g., Estate of Busch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-3. Furthermore, despite the estate’s claim, it does not appear that Mr. Sherman overstated by $900,000 the amount of excess working capital. In fact, his valuation of excess working capital appears reasonable and was approximately $100,000 lower than that of respondent’s expert. Contrary to the estate’s contentions, the record is replete with evidence that the value reported on the estate tax return was correct. For instance, in probate litigation between the decedent’s two sons, Jeffrey and Steven Leichter settled the dispute based upon a $2,261,713 value of Harlee, determined by a probate referee, who was an independent party appointed by thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011