- 14 -
based on limited sales and low or negative return on equity in
the earlier years. Each party presented expert testimony in
support of its positions on appropriate compensation levels. We
are not bound by the opinion of any expert when the opinion is
contrary to our own judgment. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 525, 597 (1989), affd. 933 F.2d 1084 (2d
Cir. 1991). We may embrace or reject expert testimony, whichever
in our judgment is most appropriate. Helvering v. National
Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282, 295 (1938). Thus, we are not
restricted to choosing the opinion of one expert over another but
may extract relevant findings from each in drawing on our own
conclusions. Estate of Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 312, 338
(1989). Here, the experts’ usefulness is primarily in the data
that they collected and analyzed rather than in their ultimately
subjective evaluations of petitioner’s officers.
Respondent’s expert, E. James Brennan III (Brennan),
determined “maximum” and “highest average” annual total
compensation levels for each position. He acknowledged that, in
comparison to other officers in similar businesses, petitioner’s
officers were undercompensated. He concluded that Ms. Burton was
entitled to a high level of compensation and that during fiscal
years 1988 and 1989 Ms. Burton was paid approximately $67,000
below the average total compensation amounts paid to chief
executive officers of bonus-paying companies of similar size.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011