“In its ruling, the [Dallas v. Commissioner] court disagreed with certain elements of MPI’s valuation methodology,” writes Harry L. Curtis III, president of Management Planning, Inc. (Princeton, N.J.), in Steve Leimberg’s Estate Planning Email Newsletter #1042 (Oct. 23, 2006) at www.leimbergservices.com. “First is an assertion …that we copied passages of another consultant’s report verbatim. We totally reject that implication—it’s simply not true.” MPI came onto the case four years after the first appraiser, Curtis says, and used only the latter’s business description for its factual review of the company’s operations, after holding extensive management meetings to confirm the facts as well as unearth new information.
As to the second criticism, although MPI agrees that its appraiser’s court testimony “was not up to the high standards we are known for,” it attributes the lapse to a “seminal manifestation of a health condition,” which led to the appraiser’s early retirement last spring. Curtis also clarifies MPI’s position on tax-affecting, DLOM, voting control premium, and executive compensation “add-backs.”
Also commenting on the Dallas case: Owen Fiore, JD—who was just released from federal custody after serving 16 months for income tax evasion (see www.owenfiore.com). Both of these blogs beg the question: When does the commentator become more controversial than the court case? Email your reaction/responses to the BVWire editor.
Please let us know
if you have any comments about this article or enhancements you would like to see.