-18-
disagreement regarding a finite legal conclusion, whether a
corporation’s value should be reduced to reflect a built-in
capital gain liability. Id. We held there that the burden of
proof issue was irrelevant when essentially no facts are in
dispute, and we declined to determine which party had the burden
of proof. Id.
We agree that, where the underlying facts are not in
dispute, it is irrelevant who has the burden to prove these
facts. See id.; Estate of Deputy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-176. Here, however, the parties dispute several important
underlying facts.
We are asked to determine the fair market value of a portion
of a privately held company operating in numerous market segments
and geographical regions, which is a question of fact. See
Commissioner v. Scottish Am. Inv. Co., 323 U.S. 119, 123-125
(1944); Helvering v. Natl. Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 294 (1938).
The parties devote numerous pages in their briefs to objecting to
the other side’s proposed findings of fact. Cf. Estate of Deputy
v. Commissioner, supra. For example, the parties dispute the
predictive value of the operating plan versus the management plan
and the impact of various economic indicators on the fortunes of
the Kitchen and Bath business segment.
Moreover, the estate introduced the testimony of several
fact witnesses, in addition to the estate’s two experts, to
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011