- 18 -
riders of petitioners’ horses. Ms. Bennet was not called as a
witness. We infer that her testimony would not have been
favorable to petitioners. See Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v.
Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th
Cir. 1947).
Petitioners did not attempt to collect debts owed to them.
Additionally, when petitioners fired Mr. Norick, they replaced
him with Nicole who was 18 years old at the time and, although
she had been a junior rider, had no experience as a trainer or
running a business. Furthermore, petitioners decided which
horses to buy and sell based upon which horses their daughters
wanted.
Petitioners further rely on the testimony of Russell Stewart
to support the conclusion that they conducted the horse activity
in a businesslike manner. Mr. Stewart was qualified as an expert
in his knowledge of and in judging grand prix jumper, hunter, and
equitation horses. Subsequent to the years in issue, Mr. Stewart
rode petitioners’ horses and transported petitioners’ horses. He
did not review petitioners’ books and records. Furthermore, all
the facts for Mr. Stewart’s report were supplied by petitioners
or their representatives.
The purpose of expert testimony is to assist the trier of
fact to understand evidence that will determine the fact in
issue. See Laureys v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 101, 127-129 (1989).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011