- 16 -
of stock may affect the valuation of the shares. Shackleford v.
United States, 262 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2001); Bayley v.
Commissioner, 624 F.2d 884, 885 (9th Cir. 1980), affg. 69 T.C.
234 (1977).
Property included in an estate is valued as of the date of
the decedent’s death, and subsequent post-death events relating
to the property being valued generally are to be disregarded.
Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 151, 155 (1929);
Succession of McCord v. Commissioner, 461 F.3d 614, 626 (5th Cir.
2006), revg. 120 T.C. 358 (2003).
However, subsequent events which are reasonably foreseeable
as of the valuation date may be considered because they would be
foreseeable by a willing buyer and a willing seller, and they
therefore would affect the valuation of the property as of the
date of death. Saltzman v. Commissioner, 131 F.3d 87, 93 (2d
Cir. 1997), revg. T.C. Memo. 1994-641; Trust Servs. of Am., Inc.
v. United States, 885 F.2d 561, 569 (9th Cir. 1989); Morris v.
Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1195, 1201 (6th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1982-508; Estate of Gilford v. Commissioner, supra at 54.
One expert may be persuasive on a particular element of
valuation, and another expert may be persuasive on another
element. See Parker v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 547, 562 (1986).
Consequently, a court may adopt some and reject other portions of
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011