- 36 -
context in which it was created. We are inclined not to expand
it without a supporting rationale.
c. Weighing the Evidence
The evidence of the value of the buildings and improvements,
equipment, and rolling stock consists of the opinions of
petitioner's experts and the amounts in the written agreement.
Donald Gwyther (Gwyther) prepared an expert report on the value
of the equipment and rolling stock. Goss prepared an expert
report on the value of the buildings and improvements.
Respondent did not dispute either Gwyther's or Goss' expertise.
We admitted their reports as exhibits attached to the stipulation
of facts. Respondent speculates that some of Gwyther's data may
be inaccurate. However, respondent did not cross-examine Gwyther
or offer any evidence in response to his report. We believe
Gwyther's and Goss' reports to be credible.
Respondent contends that the contract allocation establishes
the value of the buildings and improvements, equipment, and
rolling stock. We disagree. We view the allocations in the
written agreement and on petitioner's income tax return as
evidence of the value of the disputed items analogous to an
admission under rule 801(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence,
which petitioner can overcome with cogent evidence. See Waring
v. Commissioner, 412 F.2d 800, 801 (3d Cir. 1969), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1968-126. The contract allocation was unilateral and made
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011