Other Activities Related to Real Estate
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in performing real estate related services (except lessors of real estate, offices of real estate agents and brokers, real estate property managers, and offices of real estate appraisers).
Lazar v. Mor
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.
Motion to Amend for Consideration of Variable Member Interests Granted
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.
Brooks v. Comm’r
The IRS disallowed carryover charitable deductions for donation of a conservation easement by taxpayers’ family LLC to the county where the property lies. In addition to the disallowance of the donation deductions, the IRS assessed gross overvaluation penalties. The Tax Court denied the deductions in part for lack of following regulations and procedures. Additionally, the court found that the value determined by the taxpayers’ appraiser was filled with errors and had basic incorrect assumptions resulting in a gross misstatement of value. Thus, taxpayers were liable for the 40% accuracy-related penalty resulting from a gross valuation misstatement pursuant to section 6662(h) as determined for each of the years in issue.
Taxpayer Is Denied Charitable Deduction for a Conservation Easement, and Gross Valuation Misstatement Penalties Are Applied
The IRS disallowed carryover charitable deductions for donation of a conservation easement by taxpayers’ family LLC to the county where the property lies. In addition to the disallowance of the donation deductions, the IRS assessed gross overvaluation penalties. The Tax Court denied the deductions in part for lack of following regulations and procedures. Additionally, the court found that the value determined by the taxpayers’ appraiser was filled with errors and had basic incorrect assumptions resulting in a gross misstatement of value. Thus, taxpayers were liable for the 40% accuracy-related penalty resulting from a gross valuation misstatement pursuant to section 6662(h) as determined for each of the years in issue.
Court Denies Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Testimony of Damages
This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.
SL EC, LLC v. Ashley Energy, LLC
This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.
Larchick v. Pollock
The trial court (TC) in this case excluded the evidence of a business valuation expert because he had submitted a calculation of value report and was then asked to testify to it. The expert self-admitted that he would not testify to a calculation of value and had explained in his engagement letter that a valuation engagement would be required for testimony. Despite the exclusion by the TC and the self-admission of the inadequacy of a calculation of value for testimony purposes, the appellate court nevertheless remanded the case in part to determine whether the calculation of value met the requirements of Arizona Rule 702 for allowable evidence.
Arizona Appeals Court Says a Calculation of Value Is Not Per Se Unacceptable
The trial court (TC) in this case excluded the evidence of a business valuation expert because he had submitted a calculation of value report and was then asked to testify to it. The expert self-admitted that he would not testify to a calculation of value and had explained in his engagement letter that a valuation engagement would be required for testimony. Despite the exclusion by the TC and the self-admission of the inadequacy of a calculation of value for testimony purposes, the appellate court nevertheless remanded the case in part to determine whether the calculation of value met the requirements of Arizona Rule 702 for allowable evidence.
Courts Find Minority Discount Unwarranted Under Facts of Case
In valuing owner-spouse’s minority interest in LLC, trial court “would have been well within its discretion to apply a minority discount,” appeals court says, but it was not error for trial court to reject a discount based on certain questionable actions related to the owner’s interest.
Cobane v. Cobane
In valuing owner-spouse’s minority interest in LLC, trial court “would have been well within its discretion to apply a minority discount,” appeals court says, but it was not error for trial court to reject a discount based on certain questionable actions related to the owner’s interest.
More Valuation Data Do Not Ensure Fair Class Action Settlement
In stockholder class action, Chancery declines to approve settlement that requires plaintiffs to agree to broad release of claims in exchange for additional valuation-related information, finding it fails to meet applicable “fair and reasonable” standard.
In re Trulia Stockholder Litig.
In stockholder class action, Chancery declines to approve settlement that requires plaintiffs to agree to broad release of claims in exchange for additional valuation-related information, finding it fails to meet applicable “fair and reasonable” standard.
Court Finds ‘Market Value Concept’ Requires Flexibility
Court says under Daubert a business valuator is qualified to value an investment company dealing in real estate since the company is not a piece of real estate but a business with diverse assets and finds real estate valuation is by nature “imprecise.”
Marcus v. Quattrocchi
Court says under Daubert a business valuator is qualified to value an investment company dealing in real estate since the company is not a piece of real estate but a business with diverse assets and finds real estate valuation is by nature “imprecise.”
Stephen Weissberg v. Rene Pinado, et al.
The California Court of Appeals for the 1st Appellate District reversed an award for lost future damages following for a breach of contract.
Tax Court Bemoaned Lack of Expert Testimony
The Tax Court considered whether the compensation a holding company paid to its shareholder, a husband and wife, was reasonable and deductible under IRC Sec. 162.
Metro Leasing and Development Corporation, East Bay Chevrolet Company v. CIR
The Tax Court considered whether the compensation paid by a holding company to its shareholder, a husband and wife, was reasonable and deductible under IRC Sec. 162.
Linda Janiece Wright-Miller v. Harvey Granville Miller
The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision denying the wife a share in the appreciation of the husband's business.
A Increase in Value During the Marriage Due Solely to the Consolidation of Two Separate Property Businesses May Be Marital Property
The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision denying the wife a share in the appreciation of the husband's business.