- 51 -
benefits received included greater professional autonomy than was
perceived to be available from competing acquirers and a role in
management.
Petitioners rely on the Dutcher appraisal to establish that
they contributed property worth more that any benefits received in
return.32 Petitioners' position is that they transferred property
with a value in excess of what they received back from SMF because
the Dutcher appraisal estimated the value of their intangible
assets at $2,515,255,33 whereas they received back from SMF only a
$1,156,733 payment in the aggregate. There are a number of
problems in the Dutcher appraisal's estimate of the fair market
value of SWMG's intangible assets and each petitioner's allocable
share thereof.34 However, even if it is assumed for argument's sake
32 Although petitioners used the Houlihan appraisal, coupled
with Dr. Levin's allocation formula, for purposes of claiming on
their returns the deductions at issue, they abandoned the
Houlihan appraisal for purposes of trial and rely instead on the
Dutcher appraisal, prepared for them after respondent commenced
examinations of the returns.
33 The Dutcher appraisal treats as the value of each
petitioner's intangible assets an allocable share of the value of
the intangible assets of SWMG, a medical group petitioners formed
simultaneously with the consummation of the transaction with SMF,
as required by the terms of the transaction. Respondent argues
that because SWMG did not exist before the transaction,
petitioners could not have transferred any portion of SWMG's
intangible value to SMF as part of the transaction. We find it
unnecessary to resolve this issue for purposes of deciding
whether petitioners are entitled to the charitable contribution
deductions claimed.
34 Some of the more salient problems with the Dutcher
appraisal include:
(continued...)
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008