- 23 -
affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1986-318. Expert
testimony sometimes aids the Court in determining values and
sometimes it does not. See, e.g., Estate of Halas v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 570, 577 (1990); Laureys v. Commissioner,
92 T.C. 101, 129 (1989) (expert testimony is not useful when the
expert is merely an advocate for the position argued by one of
the parties). We are not bound by the formulas and opinions
proffered by an expert witness and will accept or reject expert
testimony in the exercise of sound judgment. Helvering v.
National Grocery Co., supra at 295; Anderson v. Commissioner, 250
F.2d at 249; Estate of Newhouse v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 217;
Estate of Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. at 338. Where necessary,
we may reach a determination of value based on our own
examination of the evidence in the record. Lukens v.
Commissioner, 945 F.2d 92, 96 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Silverman
v. Commissioner, 538 F.2d 927, 933 (2d Cir. 1976), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1974-285); Ames v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-87. Where
experts offer divergent estimates of fair market value, we decide
what weight to give these estimates by examining the factors they
used in arriving at their conclusions. Casey v. Commissioner, 38
T.C. 357, 381 (1962). We have broad discretion in selecting
valuation methods. Estate of O'Connell v. Commissioner, 640 F.2d
249, 251 (9th Cir. 1981), affg. on this issue and revg. in part
T.C. Memo. 1978-191, and the weight to be given the facts in
reaching our conclusion because “finding market value is, after
all, something for judgment, experience, and reason”, Colonial
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