- 54 -
25-30 percent fractional interest discount was appropriate for
Parcel 2, and a higher, 30-35 percent discount was appropriate
for Parcel 3 because decedent lacked a majority interest in that
parcel.
Respondent argues that no fractional interest discount
should apply in this case, as the estate has not satisfied its
burden of proving that a discount is appropriate. Respondent
claims that shortcomings in the comparables that informed Mr.
Reyman's analysis demonstrate he is not an expert in the matter
of fractional interest discounts. Respondent contends we should
therefore accord Mr. Reyman's fractional interest analysis no
weight. We disagree.
Respondent presented no evidence from which we could
conclude that no discount is appropriate. See Mooneyham v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-178. The estate has offered
evidence, consistent with common sense and precedent, that some
fractional interest discount is appropriate. Mr. Reyman concedes
there are considerable shortcomings in his supporting data, and
we agree.
The estate's return and petition are admissions that should
be binding on the estate absent cogent proof that those reported
values were erroneous. See, e.g., Estate of Hall v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 312, 337-338 (1989); Estate of True v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-167; Mooneyham v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011