Estate of Arthur G. Scanlan, Deceased, Ruth B. Scanlan, Administratrix - Page 9

                                           - 9 -                                             
          offers were for all of Eatel’s stock, whereas the issue at hand                    
          concerns minority interests; (3) Eatel’s 1992 earnings per share                   
          increased by more than 27.9 percent over its 1990 earnings per                     
          share and by more than 19.95 percent over its 1991 earnings per                    
          share; (4) petitioner's expert concluded that the price-earnings                   
          multiples of comparable publicly traded telecommunications                         
          corporations increased by more than 50 percent between the date                    
          of Decedent’s death and March 1993; and (5) petitioner's expert                    
          concluded that the premiums paid in 1993 for the stock of                          
          publicly traded telecommunications corporations were more than                     
          52 percent above the prices at which minority blocks were then                     
          trading.                                                                           
                We disagree with petitioner that the disputed evidence is                    
          irrelevant to our determination herein.  Federal law favors the                    
          admission of evidence, and the test of relevancy under Federal                     
          law is designed to reach that end.  Rule 401 of the Federal Rules                  
          of Evidence, a rule that applies to this Court under Rule 143(a),                  
          Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, provides broadly that                   
          evidence is “relevant" if it has “any tendency to make the                         
          existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination                  
          of the action more probable or less probable than it would be                      
          without the evidence.”  Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence                  
          favors a finding of relevance, and only minimal logical relevancy                  
          is necessary if the disputed fact’s existence is of consequence                    
          to the determination of the action.  Daubert v. Merrell Dow                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011