- 15 -
less than the amount it reported on the estate tax return. The
estate offered the testimony of Mr. Hartnett to support this
lesser value. In determining the highest and best use he
considered the same four criteria considered by Mr. Middleton:
(1) Physical feasibility, (2) legal permissibility, (3) financial
feasibility, and (4) maximum productivity. Mr. Hartnett
determined that the highest and best use that DP could have been
put to on the valuation date was mixed. He effectively concluded
that recreation was the primary use and timber management was the
means to cover maintenance expenses.
Mr. Hartnett then used a sales comparison approach to
determine the value of DP, which differed from the method Mr. Cox
employed. Mr. Hartnett identified sales of five comparable
properties and made adjustments to the sale price of each for
differences in size, date of sale, physical characteristics,
location, and timber value. He also adjusted for improvements on
the properties. The timber adjustment was determined by
subtracting the per-acre timber value of the property from the
per-acre value of the timber on DP; the difference was then
multiplied by the property’s total acreage. After applying the
improvement and timber adjustments, the adjusted sale price was
determined and broken down to the per-acre sale price. A time
adjustment was next applied to the per-acre price of the
property. The amount of this adjustment depended on the number
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011