FMV Cổ phần bị hạn chế. (Phù hợp kích thước khối thời gian nắm giữ nhận thức được giải thích trong phần trước.) Kể từ khi công ty chủ thể là rất lớn, và các nghiên cứu cho thấy một giảm giá thấp hơn vì thiếu của tiếp thị cho các công ty lớn hơn cho những người nhỏ hơn, | 352 IRS POSITIONS of the fair market value of corporate stocks or of business interests unless it is necessary to value the intangible assets of the corporation or the intangible assets included in the business interest. The formula approach may be used in determining the fair market values of intangible assets only if there is no better basis therefor available. In applying the formula the average earnings period and the capitalization rates are dependent upon the facts and circumstances pertinent thereto in each case. See John Q. Shunk et al. V. Commissioner 10 . 293 304-5 1948 acquiescence . 1948-1 3 affirmed 173 Fed. 2d 747 1949 Ushco Manufacturing Co. Inc. V. Commissioner Tax Court Memorandum Opinion entered March 10 1945 affirmed 175 Fed. 2d 821 1945 and White Wells Co. V. Commissioner 19 . 416 nonacquiescence . IX-2 87 1930 reversed and remanded 50 Fed. 2d 120 1931 . Section 5 Quotation of . 34 For convenience . 34 reads as follows The Committee has considered the question of providing some practical formula for determining value as of March 1 1913 or of any other date which might be considered as applying to intangible assets but finds itself unable to lay down any specific rule of guidance for determining the value of intangibles which would be applicable in all cases and under all circumstances. Where there is no established market to serve as a guide the question of value even of tangible assets is one largely of judgment and opinion and the same thing is even more true of intangible assets such as good will trade-marks trade brands etc. However there are several methods of reaching a conclusion as to the value of intangibles which the Committee suggests may be utilized broadly in passing upon questions of valuation not to be regarded as controlling however if better evidence is presented in any specific case. Where deduction is claimed for obsolescence or loss of good will or trademarks the burden of proof is primarily upon the .
