- 21 -
on the valuation date. Respondent’s departure from his position
in the notice of deficiency prompted petitioner to file a motion
to shift the burden of proof. As stated above, our decision does
not rely on the burden of proof, and petitioner’s motion was
denied as moot.
III. Cogent Proof That Petitioner’s Return Was Incorrect
Positions taken by a taxpayer in a tax return are treated as
admissions and cannot be overcome without cogent proof that they
are erroneous. Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 312 (2003);
Estate of Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 312, 337-338 (1989). On
its 1999 return, petitioner reported a value of $29,397,000 for
its water right. In its petition, petitioner contends that the
fair market value of its water right is $10.7 million. In order
to prevail in showing that the value of the water right is less
than that reported on its return, petitioner must present cogent
evidence that its reported values were wrong. Estate of Hall v.
Commissioner, supra at 338.
IV. Valuation
The central dispute between the parties in this case focuses
on the foreseeability of events that occurred after the valuation
date. Events subsequent to the date of valuation are not
generally considered in determining an asset’s fair market value,
except to the extent that they were reasonably foreseeable as of
the date of valuation. Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, 101 T.C.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011