- 10 -
F.2d 171, 174 (9th Cir. 1973), affg. 54 T.C. 493 (1970). We are
not bound by the opinion of any expert witness, especially when
that opinion is contrary to our judgment. Estate of Kreis v.
Commissioner, 227 F.2d 753, 755 (6th Cir. 1955), affg. T.C. Memo.
1954-139; Chiu v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 722, 734 (1985). Rather,
we may accept or reject expert testimony as we find appropriate
in our best judgment. 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). Moreover, even if we
accept the general methodology of an expert witness, we may
reject that expert's ultimate conclusion if it is unsupported by
the record. Owensby & Kritikos, Inc. v. Commissioner, 819 F.2d
1315, 1331 (5th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-267.
Furthermore, we are dismayed at the time and energy both the
parties and the Court have had to expend in the course of the
trial and decision in this case. As we have repeatedly stated in
regard to valuation cases:
Too often in valuation disputes the parties have
convinced themselves of the unalterable correctness of
their positions and have consequently failed
successfully to conclude settlement negotiations--a
process clearly more conducive to the proper
disposition of disputes such as this. The result is an
overzealous effort, during the course of the ensuing
litigation, to infuse a talismanic precision into an
issue which should frankly be recognized as inherently
imprecise and capable of resolution only by a Solomon-
like pronouncement. * * * [Messing v. Commissioner, 48
T.C. 502, 512 (1967).]
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