- 14 -
expert is expected to testify, and give a summary of
the grounds for each such opinion, or, in lieu of such
statement to furnish a copy of a report of such expert
presenting the foregoing information.
Notes of the Rules Committee to Rule 71(d) state that the complex
discovery provisions relating to experts in rule 26(b)(4)(B) are
inappropriate for purposes of litigation in this Court. 60 T.C.
1101. We are asked by respondent to consider whether to adopt,
in particular, rule 26(b)(4)(B) as part of Tax Court procedure.
Respondent maintains that the rules of evidence in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to Tax Court
proceedings pursuant to Rule 143. Rule 143 governs the question
of admissibility of evidence at trial. The Notes of the Advisory
Committee on the 1970 amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure contain the explanation that rule 26(b)(4)(B) was
promulgated to
repudiate the few decisions that have held an expert's
information privileged simply because of his status as
an expert, e.g., American Oil Co. v. Pennsylvania
Petroleum Products Co., 23 F.R.D. 680, 685-686 (D.R.I.
1959). * * * They also reject as ill-considered the
decisions which have sought to bring expert information
within the work-product doctrine. See United States v.
McKay, 372 F.2d 174, 176-177 (5th Cir. 1967). * * *
[28 U.S.C. app. at 705 (1994).]
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has not been
specifically adopted by this Court. In that regard, under Rule
143(a), trials before this Court are conducted in accord with the
rules of evidence applicable to trials without a jury before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. See sec. 7453.
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