- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011