-12-
affd. without published opinion 116 F.3d 1476 (5th Cir. 1997).
The particular characteristics of these hypothetical persons are
not necessarily the same as those of any specific individual or
entity and are not necessarily the same as those of the actual
buyer or the actual seller. Estate of Curry v. United States,
706 F.2d 1424, 1428-1429, 1431 (7th Cir. 1983); Estate of Bright
v. United States, 658 F.2d 999, 1005-1006 (5th Cir. 1981); Bank
One Corp. v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. at 305. Nor are these
hypothetical persons considered to be compelled to buy or to sell
the property in question. These hypothetical persons are
considered to know all relevant facts involving the property.
Bank One Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 304-306. Each of these
hypothetical persons also is presumed to be aiming to achieve the
maximum economic advantage (i.e., maximum profit) from the
hypothetical sale of the property. Estate of Watts v.
Commissioner, 823 F.2d 483, 486 (11th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1985-595; Estate of Curry v. United States, supra at 1428;
Estate of Davis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 530, 535 (1998); Estate
of Newhouse v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 193, 218 (1990); Okerlund v.
United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 341, 345 (2002), affd. 365 F.3d 1044
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Special rules apply when valuing the stock of a closely held
corporation. See Estate of Scanlan v. Commissioner, supra.
While listed market prices of publicly traded stock are usually
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011