- 21 -
resolution in a proceeding other than this proceeding.
Accordingly, all issues with respect to 1982, as set forth in the
pleadings and the notice of deficiency that form the basis for
our jurisdiction in this case, have been resolved. The remaining
issues relate to petitioner's investment in Clearwater through
his investment in EI in 1981.
Issue 2. Admissibility of Expert Reports and Testimony
Before addressing the substantive issues in this case, we
resolve an evidentiary issue. At trial, respondent offered in
evidence the expert opinions and testimony of Steven Grossman
(Grossman) and Richard Lindstrom (Lindstrom). At trial and in
his reply brief, petitioner objects to the admissibility of the
testimony and reports.
The expert reports and testimony of Grossman and Lindstrom
are identical to the testimony and reports in Fine v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-222. In addition, petitioner's
arguments with respect to the admissibility of the expert
testimony and reports are identical to the arguments made in the
Fine case. For discussions of the reports and testimony, see
Fine v. Commissioner, supra, and Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-177. For a discussion of the testimony and
petitioner's arguments concerning the admissibility of the
testimony and reports, see Fine.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011