Estate of Arthur G. Scanlan, Deceased, Ruth B. Scanlan, Administratrix - Page 15

                                           - 15 -                                            
          on the value of Eatel under a “two company analysis used by us                     
          [C & A] as an additional check on value.”                                          
                Petitioner argues that it must prevail in this case because                  
          respondent did not call an expert to contradict Mr. Chaffe’s                       
          testimony.  We disagree.  Petitioner must prove that respondent's                  
          determination of the subject values is incorrect.11  Rule 142(a);                  
          Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  The fact that                       
          respondent did not call an expert at trial to support her                          
          determination does not mean that petitioner has met its burden of                  
          proof.  Although Mr. Chaffe testified as an expert in this case                    
          on petitioner’s behalf, we will not follow his opinion if it is                    
          contrary to our judgment.  We may adopt or reject his opinion in                   
          its entirety, if we believe it appropriate to do so, or we may                     
          select the portions of his opinion that we choose to adopt.                        
          Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 627-628                        
          (1944); Helvering v. National Grocery Co., supra at 294-295;                       
          Corpus Christi Oil & Gas Co. v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp., 71 F.3d                  
          198, 204 (5th Cir. 1995); Dixon v. International Harvestor Co.,                    
          754 F.2d 573, 580 (5th Cir. 1985); Parker v. Commissioner,                         
          86 T.C. 547, 562 (1986).                                                           

                11 Petitioner has implied throughout this proceeding that                    
          respondent’s determination is invalid because it is not supported                  
          by an appraisal.  Although petitioner did not argue this issue on                  
          brief, we note in passing that we disagree.  This argument has                     
          previously been considered by the Court, and we have rejected it.                  
          See, e.g., Brigham v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-413; see also                  
          Tripp v. Commissioner, 337 F.2d 432, 434-435 (7th Cir. 1964),                      
          affg. T.C. Memo. 1963-244.                                                         




Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011