- 9 -
T.C. 547, 562 (1986). Consequently, we may adopt some and reject
other portions of expert reports or views. See Helvering v.
Natl. Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282 (1938).
In attempting to establish the fair market value of Phases 2
and 5, the estate and respondent rely on valuation experts. The
estate’s valuation expert, Brian L. Kelley (Mr. Kelley), also
valued the subject land for purposes of preparing decedent’s
estate tax return. Respondent’s valuation expert was Stephen J.
Pio (Mr. Pio).5 The experts agree that the highest and best use
of Phases 2 and 5 on the date of death was their intended use,
commercial development. The experts also agree that the
comparable sales method is the most appropriate valuation
method.6 However, the experts disagree over the fair market
values of Phases 2 and 5 on the date of death. Mr. Kelley
determined that Phases 2 and 5 had fair market values of $525,000
and $2,075,000, respectively. Mr. Pio determined that Phases 2
5 Because we find both experts to be qualified and because
their relative experience does not impact our evaluation of their
opinions, we do not discuss their qualifications or experience.
6 The comparable sales approach is “‘generally the most
reliable method of valuation, the rationale being that the market
place is the best indicator of value, based on the conflicting
interests of many buyers and sellers.’” Estate of Spruill v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1197, 1229 n.24 (1987) (quoting Estate of
Rabe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1975-26, affd. without published
opinion 566 F.2d 1183 (9th Cir. 1977)). This method requires
gathering information on sales of property similar to the subject
property, then comparing and weighing the information to reach a
likely value for the land being appraised.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011