- 19 -
introduced into the market a number of years prior thereto. The
expert utilized the same methodology for valuation that he used
and that we specifically rejected in Smoot v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1991-268.
Although we criticize petitioner’s expert witness, who also
was used in 1990 and 1991 in connection with the Brussels
Leaseback, we do not suggest any lack of business purpose or
economic substance in the Brussels Leaseback, the Atrium
Sublease, or the Trust Fund, about which we have inadequate
information, which involved generally non-U.S. taxpayers, and
with respect to which no U.S. tax issue has been raised. Our
focus, our findings, and our conclusions relate to petitioner’s
interest in, and the transfer of its interest in, the Trust Fund
and in the value of the RVC, and whether a business purpose and
economic substance were associated with petitioner’s
participation in these specific latter transactions.
The report and the testimony of petitioner’s trial expert
witness (in addition to relying on and perpetuating errors made
by petitioner’s first expert witness) were riddled with
additional significant errors and inaccuracies. Many items of
equipment were omitted from his report, and values were used for
some of the equipment that was included in his report that were
higher than the original cost figures for the equipment.
Petitioner’s experts were not credible.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011