Herbert V. Kohler, Jr., et al. - Page 28

                                        -28-                                          
               We shall now examine the experts’ opinions and                         
          methodologies, keeping in mind that respondent has the burden of            
          proof to show that the value the estate reported on its return is           
          incorrect.                                                                  
               C.   Respondent’s Expert Witness:  Dr. Scott Hakala of CBIZ            
               Because respondent has the burden of proof, we shall first             
          consider the conclusions of respondent’s expert witness, Dr.                
          Scott Hakala.  Dr. Hakala concluded that the fair market value of           
          the estate’s stock on the alternate valuation date was $156                 
          million.  We explained to the parties after respondent rested his           
          case that we had grave concerns about Dr. Hakala’s valuation                
          methods and conclusions.  We continue to have these concerns.               
                    1.   Dr. Hakala’s Background and Certifications                   
               Although Dr. Hakala has a doctorate from the University of             
          Minnesota and is a chartered financial analyst, he is not a                 
          member of the American Society of Appraisers (ASA) nor the                  
          Appraisal Foundation.  Dr. Hakala’s report also was not submitted           
          in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional                    
          Appraisal Practice (USPAP).  Dr. Hakala did not provide the                 
          customary USPAP certification, which assures readers that the               
          appraiser has no bias regarding the parties, no other persons               
          besides those listed provided professional assistance, and that             
          the conclusions in the report were developed in conformity with             
          USPAP.                                                                      






Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011