- 59 -
during the first trial in this case. Our opinion sustain-
ing respondent's determination of the additions to tax
would be the same whether we accept the subject testimony
in evidence or not. However, we find the report and
testimony of each of petitioners' "experts" during the
second trial, Mr. Raynault and Professor Mundstock, to
lack the objectivity and credibility which we expect from
experts who testify in this Court. Both witnesses became
advocates for the position argued by petitioners in their
reports and testimony, and we find them to be of no
assistance in making our findings of fact in this case.
In this situation, we agree with respondent that the
reports and testimony should not be received in evidence.
See Snap-Drape, Inc. v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 16, 20
(1995), affd. 98 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1996); Laureys v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 101, 122-129 (1989).
Rule 155 Computation
As amended by an order of the Court, Robertson I
directed that the Court's decision be entered under Rule
155. In due course thereafter, respondent filed
respondent's computation for entry of decision under Rule
155, and petitioners filed petitioners' objection to entry
of respondent's decision under Rule 155. Both parties also
filed memoranda setting forth their positions.
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011