In Re Estate of Frank

261 P. 893, 123 Or. 286, 1927 Ore. LEXIS 249
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 1, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 261 P. 893 (In Re Estate of Frank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Estate of Frank, 261 P. 893, 123 Or. 286, 1927 Ore. LEXIS 249 (Or. 1927).

Opinion

*288 BELT, J.

On November 7, 1923, Linda A. Frank died bequeathing’ to her son, Henry J. Frank, 42 shares of stock in the Blumauer-Frank Drug Company, a corporation engaged in the wholesale drug business in the City of Portland. In the administration of the estate, the appraisers, for the purpose of determining the amount of inheritance tax, placed a valuation of $78,978.90 upon the stock, or $1,880.45 for each share. Upon the adoption of the report of the appraisers, the State Treasurer filed objections asserting that the stock was not appraised at its actual value. After hearing, the court set aside its former order approving the report of the appraisers, and reassessed the stock upon a basis of $3,911.30 for each share. The executor of the estate appeals.

This corporation was organized with a capital stock of $200,000, divided into 200 shares of the par value of $1,000 each. The stock is closely held by the members of the Frank family and is not listed or offered for sale on the open market. The record discloses that, for the ten years prior to and including the year of the death of decedent in 1923, the earnings of the corporation averaged $43,862.30 per year. For the five years prior to and including 1923 the earnings averaged $26,378.90. In appellant’s brief the average earnings for such period was, according to our arithmetic, erroneously stated to be $30,087.29. The greatest profit was $106,481.67, in 1917, during the war period. However, in 1921 there was great deflation in prices as a result of the war and the company sustained a loss of $97,169.11. The corporation paid no dividends on the stock until the year 1917 and since then has declared an annual dividend of 6 per cent on its capitalization. In other words, $12,000 *289 was each year distributed among the stockholders and the balance of the earnings used in the business as working capital.

The trial court, in keeping with the contention of the State Treasurer, determined the amount of inheritance tax by assessing the stock on the basis of its “book value. ’’ The total valuation of the stock was thus found to be $781,832.78.- The appraisers took the average earnings for a period of five years and considered this as 8 per cent of the value of the stock. They fixed the total valuation of the stock at $376,091 ■ — computed on the basis of the average earnings as stated in appellant’s brief — or a valuation of $78,978.90 for the 42 shares. However, if the average earnings for five years, as we compute it, is $26,378.90 and this sum represents 8 per cent of the value of the stock, then its total valuation, according to appellant’s theory, would be $329,736.25 and not $376,091.

What is the correct method for computing an inheritance tax upon stock in a close corporation such as the evidence discloses this to be? How can we best arrive at the true value of this stock? The statute (Section 1216, Or. L.) provides that the property shall be appraised at its “market value.” We think “market value” is used synonymously with “cash value” or “actual value”: Tax Com. of Ohio v. Clark, 20 Ohio App. 166 (151 N. E. 780); In re Dupignac’s Estate, 123 Misc. Rep. 21 (204 N. Y. Supp. 273). If the stock in question had been sold in the open market freely, such sales would be a good criterion of the true value of the stock. In the instant case there have been no sales within recent years that would have any probative value in determining the market price. We must, therefore, resort to *290 other tests. There are many factors to he taken into consideration in estimating the value of the stock in a business of this character. Perhaps there is no method of computation which the human mind could devise that would prove entirely satisfactory in ascertaining the value of stock closely held in a corporation of this kind. The law is satisfied hy selecting that method which most nearly approximates market value. It is easy to conceive of corporations the book value of whose stock is either far above or below the price it would bring if sold for cash upon the open market under normal conditions. Likewise there are certain holding companies which have no earnings and yet their stock represents great value. It would be utterly absurd to assess stock in a corporation whose chief asset was its timber holdings on the basis of earnings. In such case there might be no earnings, yet it could not reasonably be contended that the stock had no value. It is apparent, therefore, that, in determining the actual value of stock in a close corporation, book value, earnings, dividends, goodwill of the business, future prospective profits, and any other fact or circumstance which would influence a person ready, able and willing to buy such stock, should be taken into consideration. Eesort should be made to all business tests and measures. The book value of stock in corporations of the kind under consideration is prima facie the true value. It is the declaration of the corporation as to the value of its property. It is the purpose of the law to exact a tax from those who inherit property, on the basis of its real value.

A method of computation which would lead to inequitable or unjust results should be rejected. It is not advisable to lay down a hard-and-fast rule *291 which should be followed in estimating the value of stock in a close corporation. Any method used must stand the test of reason. After all, courts should be more concerned with results than methods. In recent years the tendency is toward a consideration of all factors, such as (1) asset value; (2) selling price; (3) earning capacity, and the result obtained is the effect of compromise: Pinkerton & Millsap’s Inheritance and Estate Taxes, § 324. It may, however, be stated with some degree of certainty that the value of stock in close corporations may be best determined for inheritance tax purposes by using its book value as a basis, unless there is evidence disclosing that such would lead to unreasonable or inequitable results: In re Valentine, 147 N. Y. Supp. 231; In re Dupignac’s Estate, supra; In re Jones’ Estate, 172 N. Y. 575 (65 N. E. 570, 60 L. R. A. 476); In re Estate of Felton, 176 Cal. 663 (169 Pac. 392); State v. Pabst, 139 Wis. 561 (121 N. W. 351). But see In re Jones’ Estate (Ohio App.), 155 N. E. 395, wherein the court refused to accept the book value of the stock as its actual value. In the case last cited there was considered (1) the value and sale of stocks of a similar kind; (2) the activities of the corporation during the different periods of its existence; (3) its earnings; (4) book value of the stock during various years; (5) future prospects, and (6) dividends.

The appraisers’ valuation of the stock is based primarily upon the earnings of the corporation for a five-year period, whereas, if the same method had been applied to a ten-year period, the value of each share of stock would be $2,816.39 rather than $1,880.45 per share. The World War caused abnormal price conditions. If, in estimating average *292

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

Related

Henry v. Department of Revenue
11 Or. Tax 214 (Oregon Tax Court, 1989)
Percy v. Percy
564 P.2d 919 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1977)
Kingery v. Department of Revenue
554 P.2d 471 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1976)
Kingery v. Department of Revenue
6 Or. Tax 202 (Oregon Tax Court, 1975)
Estate of Burger v. Department of Revenue
5 Or. Tax 240 (Oregon Tax Court, 1973)
Dept. of Revenue v. First Nat. Bank of Oregon
479 P.2d 256 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1971)
American Surety Company of New York v. Nash
389 P.2d 266 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1964)
Bristol v. State Tax Commission
1 Or. Tax 81 (Oregon Tax Court, 1962)
Strawn v. State Tax Commission
1 Or. Tax 98 (Oregon Tax Court, 1962)
Unander v. Murphy
299 P.2d 813 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1956)
Massey v. Fischer
245 S.W.2d 594 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1952)
Larue County Board of Sup'rs v. Lincoln Nat. Bank
187 S.W.2d 819 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1945)
McLure Appeal
32 A.2d 885 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1943)
Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Worcester County Trust Co.
26 N.E.2d 305 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 P. 893, 123 Or. 286, 1927 Ore. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-frank-or-1927.