- 63 -
requirements of other machinery. See Piggly Wiggly S., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 84 T.C. 739, 750-753 (1985), affd. 803 F.2d 1572
(11th Cir. 1986); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-306; Morrison, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra.
Applying the foregoing general principles, we next consider
the appropriate individual categories for the disputed property
items. Before we address the substantive issues, however, we
must decide an evidentiary matter which was raised at trial.
At trial, petitioners objected to the admission of portions
of the report prepared by respondent's expert, Steve Wilgus (Mr.
Wilgus), which petitioners contend contains legal conclusions.
Respondent contends that the contested materials do not
constitute legal conclusions. We took petitioners' objections
under advisement.
Testimony of a witness qualified by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education is admissible whenever that
scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist
the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to decide a fact
in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702. Testimony that expresses a legal
conclusion and does not assist the trier of fact is not
admissible. See Heflin v. Stewart County, Tenn., 958 F.2d 709,
715-716 (6th Cir. 1992); Davis v. Combustion Engg., Inc., 742
F.2d 916, 919 (6th Cir. 1984); Laureys v. Commissioner, 92 T.C.
101, 126-129 (1989); Weinstein's Federal Evidence, sec.
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011