- 13 - In the instant case, the PPM states that the EMS was purchased by Dard from CEF, an unrelated party, for $337,000 in 1980. That same year, Nisona purchased the EMS from Dard for $9,342,000, and Sav-Fuel purchased the EMS from Nisona for $10,350,000. The price paid by Sav-Fuel for the EMS in 1980 was over 3,000 percent greater than the price paid by Dard for the same property in the same year.9 There is no evidence in the record and petitioner has offered no explanation as to the massive difference in the purchase price of the EMS. Indeed, petitioner concedes on brief that the price Sav-Fuel paid for the EMS was “excessive” and contends that a more plausible value for the EMS was $5 million. Petitioner testified at trial that he performed his own valuation analysis of the EMS after respondent disallowed the deductions. In making this argument as to the appropriate value of the EMS, petitioner relies on evidence that was not admitted into the record.10 It is clear that both Sav-Fuel and Nisona grossly overpaid for the EMS and that these gross overpayments were intentionally 910,350,000 � 337,000 = 30.71, or 3,071 percent. 10Petitioner attached to his posttrial brief an affidavit from a certified public accountant as to the value of the EMS. However, this affidavit was not previously stipulated or offered and admitted into evidence at trial. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to rely on the affidavit as support for his argument. Other than this affidavit, petitioner presented no other documents supporting his valuation of the EMS.Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011