Pabst Brewing Company - Page 24

                                       - 24 -                                         
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-255, affd. without published                  
          opinion 91 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 1996).                                         
               As typically occurs in a case of valuation, the parties rely           
          primarily on their experts' testimony and reports to support the            
          parties' contrary positions on the valuation issue.  Expert                 
          testimony sometimes aids the Court in determining valuation.                
          Other times, it does not.10  The Court is not bound by an opinion           
          of an expert.  Aided by our common sense, we weigh the                      
          helpfulness and persuasiveness of an expert's testimony in light            
          of his or her qualifications and in the context of all other                
          credible evidence in the record.  Depending on what we believe is           
          appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case, we may           
          reject an expert's opinion in its entirety, accept it in its                
          entirety, or accept only selective portions of it.  Helvering v.            
          National Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 294-295 (1938); Goldstein v.            
          Commissioner, 298 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1962), affg. T.C. Memo.           
          1960-276; In re Williams Estate, 256 F.2d 217, 219 (9th Cir.                
          1958), affg. T.C. Memo. 1956-239; Seagate Technology v.                     
          Commissioner, 102 T.C. 149, 186 (1994); Parker v. Commissioner,             
          86 T.C. 547, 562 (1986).  The Court has previously rejected an              
          expert's testimony as incredible when the expert's opinion of               
          value was so exaggerated as to make it unrealistic.  See Chiu v.            

               10 For example, expert testimony is not useful to the Court            
          when the expert is merely an advocate for the position argued by            
          the party.  Laureys v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 101, 129 (1989).               

Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011