Okerlund v. United States (2004)

Thus, in the context of calculating taxes on a gift of closely-held stock, it was appropriate to value stock by considering “the company’s net worth, earnings potential, capacity to pay dividends, and other relevant factors.” Id. at 1050 (listing additional relevant factors including, among others, the dividend-paying capacity of the company, market price of freely traded stocks of corporations engaged in similar lines of business, and discounts to reflect the stock’s lack o…

Co. v. Comm’r, 600 F.3d 121, 124 (2d Cir.2010) (noting standard of review regarding Tax Court); Okerlund v. United States, 365 F.3d 1044, 1049 (Fed.Cir.2004) (same regarding Federal Court of Claims).

Okerlund v. United States, 365 F.3d 1044, 1050 (Fed.

The statute requires the taxpayer to bring forward “credible evidence.” I.R.C. § 7491(a)(1); see Stobie Creek, 82 Fed.Cl. at 663 (citing Long Term Capital Holdings v. United States, 330 F.Supp.2d 122, 166 (D.Conn.2004)). 4 Evidence held by courts to be credible includes expert witness reports and testimony, see Okerlund v. United States, 53 Fed.Cl. 341, 345, 355-56 (2002), aff'd, 365 F.3d 1044 (Fed.Cir.2004), and documentary evidence presented at trial, see Southgate Master …

See Okerlund v. United States, 365 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (Fed.Cir.2004) (finding no error in district court refusing to admit evidence that expert’s valuation prediction turned out to be wrong).

See Okerlund v. United States, 365 F.3d 1044, 1050 (Fed.Cir.2004) (noting the market approach to valuation identifies comparable companies).