Estate of Webster E. Kelley, Deceased, John R. Louden and Patricia L. Louden, Personal Representatives - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
               B.  Fair Market Value Before Discounts                                 
               As determined supra, the NAV method is generally an                    
          appropriate method to apply when computing the value of a                   
          nonoperating entity.  See Estate of Ford v. Commissioner, supra.            
          While more than one method may be used, giving appropriate weight           
          as necessary, we find that in this case, where the interest to be           
          valued is an interest in a family limited partnership whose                 
          assets consist solely of cash and certificates of deposit, the              
          income approach should not be afforded more than minor weight.              
               The parties agree that the value of KLLP’s assets on the               
          valuation date, decedent’s date of death, was $1,226,421,                   
          consisting of $807,271 cash and $419,150 in certificates of                 
          deposit and no liabilities.  Therefore, we use this as the NAV.             
               C.  Minority Interest (Lack of Control) Discount                       
                    1.  Introduction                                                  
               Pursuant to the partnership agreement, a buyer of all or any           
          portion of the transferred interests would have limited control             
          of his investment.  A hypothetical willing buyer would account              
          for this lack of control by demanding a reduced price; i.e., a              
          price that is below the NAV of the pro rata share of the interest           
          purchased in KLLP.  A minority discount will therefore apply in             
          this case where a partner lacks control.  See Estate of Bischoff            
          v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 32, 49 (1977).                                     







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011