Estate of Helen M. Noble, Deceased, Leslie H. Noble, Jr., and John R. Noble, Co-Personal Representatives - Page 27

                                        -27-                                          
          million, or, in other words, almost twice the amount of the                 
          price actually received.  Given the additional facts that the               
          third sale occurred sufficiently close to the applicable                    
          valuation date and that the record does not reveal any material             
          change in circumstances that occurred between that date and the             
          date of the third sale that would have affected the fair market             
          value of the subject shares, we conclude on the basis of the                
          limited evidentiary record before us that the third sale is the             
          best indicium of the fair market value of decedent’s shares at              
          the time of her death.5  See Estate of Fitts v. Commissioner,               
          237 F.3d at 731; Rubber Research, Inc. v. Commissioner, 422 F.2d            
          at 1406; Ward v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 78, 101 (1986); Estate of            
          Andrews v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. at 940; see also Silverman v.              
          Commissioner, 538 F.2d 927, 931 n.7 (2d Cir. 1976) (“Arm’s length           
          sales of the stock to be valued are, of course, the best evidence           


               5 We find nothing in the record to support the conclusion              
          which we draw from the Mercer report that the fair market value             
          of the subject shares almost doubled from the applicable                    
          valuation date to the time of the third sale and, in light of the           
          third sale, are unpersuaded by that report’s conclusion as to the           
          applicable fair market value of those shares.  Mercer opined that           
          the third sale was an arm’s-length sale that involved a seller              
          who at the time of the third sale lacked knowledge that the value           
          of its stock exceeded the $1.1 million sale price.  The fact that           
          a more knowledgeable seller might have extracted a higher sale              
          price for the subject shares does not on the record before us               
          detract from the probative value of the third sale.  At the                 
          least, the price in that sale serves as a floor to the fair                 
          market value of the subject shares and, given that respondent               
          does not request a higher value, serves in our opinion as the               
          best measure of the fair market value of the subject shares as of           
          the applicable valuation date.                                              




Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011