- 54 -
The Court concludes that petitioners have failed to
establish that, during 1987 through 1992, substantially more
breeding cattle were present than were estimated by respondent’s
expert Mr. Daily.32 The Court further concludes that petitioners
have failed to show that breeding cattle existed in each year
during this period in numbers corresponding with those
31(...continued)
feed conditions. However, Mr. Hawkins (who helped maintain the
Hoyt organization’s cattle records) testified that the Hoyt
organization had not suffered any substantial cattle losses
during this period as a result of drought or disease. Moreover,
a cattle expert for petitioners acknowledged that he would
question the competence of any cattle operator that allowed a
large number of cattle to perish during drought. This expert
indicated that an operator could either provide food and water to
the cattle, move them, or sell them off. In any event,
petitioners have now conceded the alleged large losses for
drought and disease previously claimed by the partnerships in the
instant cases. See supra note 15.
32On brief, petitioners note that: (1) Petitioner’s expert
Mr. Hunsley (the ASA’s executive director) testified that, in
1986 (when he was serving as an expert witness for the taxpayers
in Bales v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-568), he visited some
of the Hoyt ranch properties in Oregon, saw perhaps 3,000 cattle,
and estimated a total of 5,000 to 6,000 cattle were there; and
(2) certain State of Oregon brand inspection reports covering
8,796 head of cattle were issued during 1987. However, the Court
has major reservations (which are discussed more fully infra)
about Mr. Hunsley’s veracity and does not give this testimony
much weight. As to the brand inspection reports, the Court has
not found persuasive the numbers of cattle reflected in these
reports, as a new report must be issued for cattle when their
shipment out of State is delayed beyond the scheduled date. In
addition, as respondent points out, the brand inspection and
other health reports in evidence do not firmly establish a
definite number of total cattle, as these papers are required
when cattle are moved and the same cattle may be moved more than
once during a year.
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011