13
is to punish and deter fertilizer manufacturers who fail to
comply with the fertilizer laws.
We are not bound by the opinion of an expert witness. We
will accept or reject expert testimony when, based on the record,
it is appropriate to do so. Estate of Newhouse v. Commissioner,
94 T.C. 193, 217 (1990). We may choose to accept the opinion of
one expert in its entirety, Buffalo Tool & Die Manufacturing Co.
v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 441, 452 (1980), or we may be selective
in the use of any portion of that opinion; Seagate Technology,
Inc. & Consol. Subs. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 149, 186 (1994).
We are satisfied that the payments at issue were designed to
compensate the consumer of the deficient fertilizer. The North
Carolina fertilizer law provides: "All penalties assessed under
this section shall be paid to the consumer of the lot of
fertilizer represented by the sample". N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 106-
665(c). The Virginia fertilizer law provides: "If the analysis
shows that the fertilizer is deficient * * * then an assessment
* * * shall be paid to the consumer by the guarantor." Va. Code
Ann. sec. 3.1-106.13.A (Michie 1994). The quoted language
indicates that the respective State legislatures intended to
compensate the consumer of the deficient fertilizer.
The two-step method used to calculate the penalty also
supports the conclusion that the payment to the consumer is
remedial. Each step of the calculation accounts for a separate
loss to the consumer. First, the value of the deficient
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011