- 24 -
To the extent Mr. Dankoff believes that the benchmark range
of discounts we utilized in Mandelbaum v. Commissioner, supra, is
controlling in this or any other case, he is mistaken.21 Nothing
in Mandelbaum suggests that we ascertained that range of
discounts for any purpose other than the resolution of that case.
To the contrary, we specifically stated that we were using the
upper and lower limits of that range “as benchmarks of the
marketability discount for the shares at hand.” (Emphasis
added.) If, instead, Mr. Dankoff simply believes that such range
of discounts is equally appropriate under the facts of this case,
he offers no justification whatsoever for that view. We believe
he would be hard pressed to do so; the entity at issue in
Mandelbaum, an established operating company, bears little
resemblance to the partnership.22
21 Petitioner’s counsel indeed asserts in his posttrial
brief that Mandelbaum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-255, affd.
without published opinion 91 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 1996), “sets a
benchmark for lack of marketability discounts in the range of 35%
to 45%”, suggesting his belief that the Court in Mandelbaum
established a legal standard in that regard to be followed in
subsequent cases.
22 Petitioner indeed states in his posttrial reply brief
that “Petitioner did not rely on the factual basis of Mandelbaum
or claim that the instant case should be similarly decided based
on factual similarities”.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011