- 24 -
should equal the excess of the value of the merchantable timber
on DP over the value of the timber on the White House Plantation.
We disagree with respondent.
We find that Mr. Hartnett’s adjustment adequately accounts
for the greater value of the standing timber on DP. We are
determining DP’s per-acre value using the comparable sales
approach, and adjusting the per-acre value is consistent with
this approach. Thus, we accept the amount of the adjustment in
Mr. Hartnett’s report.
c. Time
The White House Plantation sale occurred about 2-1/3 years
before the valuation date. Mr. Hartnett made a positive 8-
percent adjustment to the per-acre value of the White House
Plantation for this difference. Respondent did not object to
this adjustment, and we have no reason to reject this adjustment.
Thus, we will apply an 8-percent time adjustment.
d. Size Adjustment
Mr. Hartnett made a 35-percent size adjustment to the per-
acre sale price of the White House Plantation since it was about
one-fourth the size of DP. Respondent objects to the size of
this adjustment.
While we agree that some size adjustment is appropriate, we
think that a 35-percent adjustment was unduly large. If the
facts had demonstrated the White House Plantation was purchased
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011