Capital Blue Cross and Subsidiaries - Page 34

                                       - 34 -                                         
          adequately established the fair market value (i.e., basis) of its           
          health insurance group contracts as of January 1, 1987.                     
               In regard to the nature of the evidence needed to establish            
          the amount of loss deductions under section 165, Mertens, Law of            
          Federal Income Taxation, provides generally as follows:                     

                    Often, in proving the amount of actual loss, the                  
               taxpayer must demonstrate not only the value of what                   
               the taxpayer may have left after the loss but his cost                 
               or other basis in the item on which loss is sustained.                 
               This phase of the problem requires essentially a                       
               factual demonstration.  Estimates and crude                            
               approximations are not sufficient.  [7 Mertens, Law of                 
               Federal Income Taxation, sec. 28.04, at 25 (2001 rev.);                
               fn. ref. omitted.]10                                                   

               10  The concept that different valuation contexts may call             
          for different valuation approaches is not a novel or new                    
          proposition.  As stated in a leading valuation treatise: “an                
          asset’s value for one federal tax purpose may be different from             
          its value for another federal tax purpose.”  Bogdanski, Federal             
          Tax Valuation, par. 2.03, at 2-169 (1996).  An asset’s value may            
          differ depending on the valuation context because “both the                 
          concepts of value and the technique of its proof are decidedly              
          influenced by the specific purpose for which the valuation is               
          made.”  1 Bonbright, The Valuation of Property, at 4-5 (photo.              
          reprint 1965) (1937); see also, Smith & Parr, Valuation of                  
          Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets, ch. 5, at 140-142              
          (2d ed. 1994) (the value of an asset may be impacted by the                 
          underlying purpose for the valuation of the asset).                         
               Courts have recognized that in the estate tax context the              
          valuation approach used to calculate the value of a gross estate            
          (e.g., a grouping of the assets together) may be different from             
          the approach used to calculate the value of a deduction from the            
          gross estate.  Ahmanson Found. v. United States, 674 F.2d 761               
          (9th Cir. 1981); Estate of Chenoweth v. Commissioner, 88 T.C.               
          1577 (1987).  In Ahmanson Found., the Court of Appeals for the              
          Ninth Circuit stated as follows:                                            
               there are compelling considerations in conflict with                   
               the initially plausible suggestion that valuation for                  
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011