-21-
86 T.C. 91, 101 (1986) (unaccepted offer to purchase land is not
conclusive evidence of the value of the land). We also do not
know, for example, whether the bidders at the auction consisted
of actual consumers who were willing to buy an item at its fair
market value or, as Carmona persuasively opined in the setting of
jewelry auctions, primarily dealers who bid substantially less
than fair market value in order to resell their purchases at a
fair market value price which, to them, would be inclusive of a
businessman’s profit. In fact, we know little about the
composition or number of bidders at the auction, let alone the
tone of the actual bidding that took place. On the record before
us, we simply cannot conclude as to any of the six items in
question that the auction market is the “market * * * in which
such item is most commonly sold to the public”. Sec.
20.2031-1(b), Estate Tax Regs.
We are mindful that this Court has on occasion determined
that an item’s auction price was its fair market value. E.g.,
Estate of Scull v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-211; Lightman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-315. In contrast with the case at
hand, the auction markets in those cases were shown to be the
appropriate retail markets for the assets under consideration,
and the sales at auction were shown to be to the ultimate
consumer. Where as here such is not the case, the Court has
rejected equating the auction price of an item with its fair
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