Appeal of Gilchrist Co.

Board of Tax Appeals

Appeal of Gilchrist Co.

5 B.T.A. 600

CourtUnited States Board of Tax Appeals

DecidedNovember 23, 1926

DocketDocket No. 5397

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 B.T.A. 600 (Appeal of Gilchrist Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Board of Tax Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appeal of Gilchrist Co., 5 B.T.A. 600 (bta 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

[601]*601OPINION.

Steenhagen:

The petitioner claims that its leaseholds were, on March 1, 1913, worth the amount of $150,000, entered upon its books in August, 1912, in excess of the value represented by the rentals and other terms of the leases. This amount it seeks to have recognized as the basis for exhaustion deductions within the taxable year. Grosvenor Atterbury, 1 B. T. A. 169. It has introduced in evidence the oral depositions of several witnesses who expressed their opinion that the leaseholds were of greater value on March 1, 1913, than was reflected in the rentals, and that this alleged increase in value was attributable to the completion of the subway near by, as well as the construction of large commercial buildings in the vicinity. The testimony of these witnesses is, however, not sufficient to indicate the measure of any enhancement in value which might have taken place. Their testimony indicates that their opinions were not the result of careful consideration but were mere casual expressions upon which no prospective willing purchaser would have acted on March 1, 1913. Bearing in mind that value implies both a purchaser and a seller, it is not enough that he who would be a seller expresses a categorical opinion as to value. Unless it is also shown that such an opinion represents the common point of dealing with a willing buyer, it does not prove value.

Judgment will be entered for the Commissioner,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[601]*601OPINION.

Steenhagen:

The petitioner claims that its leaseholds were, on March 1, 1913, worth the amount of $150,000, entered upon its books in August, 1912, in excess of the value represented by the rentals and other terms of the leases. This amount it seeks to have recognized as the basis for exhaustion deductions within the taxable year. Grosvenor Atterbury, 1 B. T. A. 169. It has introduced in evidence the oral depositions of several witnesses who expressed their opinion that the leaseholds were of greater value on March 1, 1913, than was reflected in the rentals, and that this alleged increase in value was attributable to the completion of the subway near by, as well as the construction of large commercial buildings in the vicinity. The testimony of these witnesses is, however, not sufficient to indicate the measure of any enhancement in value which might have taken place. Their testimony indicates that their opinions were not the result of careful consideration but were mere casual expressions upon which no prospective willing purchaser would have acted on March 1, 1913. Bearing in mind that value implies both a purchaser and a seller, it is not enough that he who would be a seller expresses a categorical opinion as to value. Unless it is also shown that such an opinion represents the common point of dealing with a willing buyer, it does not prove value.

Judgment will be entered for the Commissioner,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 B.T.A. 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-gilchrist-co-bta-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack