- 23 -
Industry”.7 The Parsons OMT Report was based on a review of 213
OMT returns that represented about 80 percent of the total OMT
paid from 1968 to 1980. The mining operators which filed those
returns had about 68 percent of Ontario’s mineral production
during that period.
William J. Hallett (Hallett) was respondent’s expert. He
testified about the OMT returns that Parsons analyzed. Parsons
prepared a memorandum that rebutted parts of Hallett’s testimony.
We are not bound by the opinion of any expert witness, and
we may accept or reject expert testimony exercising our sound
judgment. Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 295
(1938); Fitts’ Estate v. Commissioner, 237 F.2d 729, 732-733 (8th
Cir. 1956), affg. T.C. Memo. 1955-269; IT & S of Iowa, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 496, 508 (1991).
3. Petitioner's Study of OMT Taxpayers
Respondent concedes that the Parsons OMT Report included a
representative cross-section of OMT taxpayers. Only one
significant taxpayer did not give its OMT tax returns to Parsons
for the study. Respondent's expert stated that this taxpayer's
information would not have materially changed the results of the
7Kumara Rachamalla was petitioner’s other expert.
Respondent objected to our consideration of his report and
testimony. Canadian law precluded him from revealing the data
upon which he based his opinion and answering questions about
this data on cross-examination. He agreed with Parsons’
conclusion in every material aspect. However, we have not
considered his report or testimony in deciding this case.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011