- 29 -
$425,637 ($325,637 for depreciable assets and $100,000 for land).
The balance sheet entries are a reasonable indicator of the fair
market value of the Riverside property on May 30, 1995, because
they were prepared relatively close in time to when the property
was placed in the partnership, were made long before the value of
the Riverside property was in issue, and were not made in
anticipation of litigation.
Third, Smith testified that he thought a one-half interest
in the Riverside property had a fair market value of $425,000
when negotiations between the parties in the Stover bankruptcy
ended in March 1995. Smith based his estimate on his visit to
the property, the documents filed in the Stover bankruptcy, and
his discussions with the Anises.
Fourth, Stover listed a value of $400,000 for his one-half
interest in the Riverside property on a bankruptcy schedule he
filed in August 1993. An owner of property is generally
qualified to testify as to the property’s value. Fed. R. Evid.
702; see LaCombe v. A-T-O, Inc., 679 F.2d 431, 435 (5th Cir.
1982); Estate of Dunia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-123.
We believe the balance sheets, Smith’s testimony, and the
Stover bankruptcy schedule, which all are in the same range
($400,000-425,000) for a one-half interest in the Riverside
property, are entitled to more weight than petitioners’ expert’s
appraisal. We conclude that the fair market value of the
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011