Garwood Irrigation Company - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         
          II. Valuation Methodology                                                   
               At trial, petitioner presented the testimony of Terry Lloyd,           
          C.P.A., C.F.A., as an expert valuation witness.  Mr. Lloyd                  
          prepared an expert witness report in accordance with Rule 143.              
          The record also contains the expert report of John E. Camp,                 
          C.P.A./A.B.V., C.F.A., of Ferguson, Camp & Henry, whose report              
          provided the valuation used in the preparation of petitioner’s              
          1999 Federal income tax return (1999 return).  In addition, in              
          evidence is a draft expert report by Jonathan E. Kemmerer,                  
          C.P.A., dated June 5, 1996, and a report by James Kowis, P.E., of           
          James Kowis Consulting, dated November 10, 2003.  Mr. Kemmerer’s            
          expert report was submitted in draft form, and is of limited use            
          to reach a final valuation conclusion.                                      
               Respondent presented the testimony of Gregory E. Scheig,               
          C.F.A., C.P.A., of CBIZ Valuation Group, Inc., as an expert                 
          valuation witness.  Mr. Scheig prepared an expert witness report            
          in accordance with Rule 143.  Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Camp, and Mr. Scheig           
          in their respective expert reports valued petitioner’s water                
          right in separate components: (1) The estimated 100,000 acre-foot           
          portion of petitioner’s water used for irrigation, (2) the 35,000           
          acre-foot portion of petitioner’s water involved in the Corpus              
          Christi transaction, and (3) the estimated 33,000 acre-foot                 
          portion of petitioner’s water that was neither used for                     
          irrigation nor involved in the Corpus Christi transaction.  Mr.             






Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011