- 21 -
taxpayer's reserves, for pre-1986 years, at yearend 1986 exceeded
its reserves at yearend 1985, and that excess reflected routine
adjustments made consistent with past reserving practices. In
each case, the taxpayer did not change its reserving assumptions
or methodology.
Respondent attempts to distinguish the present case from
Western National based on the submission of expert testimony. In
Western National, respondent chose not to submit expert testimony
and instead contended that congressional intent, as expressed in
the conference committee report, was determinative. Having lost
on that argument, respondent has submitted expert testimony in
the present case in her attempt to establish that the term
"reserve strengthening" is subject to more than one
interpretation.
The Court's decision in Western National, however, was not
based solely on expert testimony. In fact, the Court in Western
National acknowledged that the expert testimony submitted in that
case "did not establish a universal and precise definition of
reserve strengthening" but concluded that the testimony did
provide "sufficient guidance to enable our recognition of the
conceptual elements involved in industry jargon." Western Natl.
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. at 351 n.10. Moreover,
several of the factors cited by the Court for its decision in
Western National did not depend on expert testimony. For
example, the Court stated that: (1) Congress previously had used
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011