- 20 -
by the opinion of any expert witness when the opinion is contrary
to our judgment. Chiu v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 722, 734 (1985).
We may accept or reject expert testimony as we find appropriate.
Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 294-295 (1938);
Seagate Tech., Inc. & Consol. Subs. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C.
149, 186 (1994).
Petitioner's expert report was prepared by Peterson
Consulting L.L.C. (Peterson Consulting). Mr. Philip Rowley
(Rowley), a vice president of Peterson Consulting, testified at
trial regarding his company's valuation of the license. Peterson
Consulting applied an incremental profit method to value the
license. For the valuation, Peterson Consulting included the
following assets as being part of the license agreement: Trade
names, trademarks and logos, SMMT, the right to market SMMT,
computer software, and certification as a Dharma/Nyingma
organization. Peterson Consulting also considered DM's covenant
not to compete in its evaluation of the license.
Under the incremental profits method, Peterson Consulting
estimated petitioner's profits with and without the licensed
assets. It attributed the difference between the two, or
incremental profits, to the value of the licensed assets. It
adjusted the value for applicable taxes and discounted it to
present value. Peterson Consulting valued petitioner's business,
as of the 1990 amendment, with the license at $5,611,392 and
without the license at $439,970 for incremental profits from the
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011