- 24 -
The Court has broad discretion to evaluate the cogency of an
expert’s analysis. Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner,
115 T.C. 43, 85 (2000). Sometimes, an expert will help us decide
a case. E.g., Booth v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 524, 573 (1997);
Trans City Life Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 274, 302
(1996); see also M.I.C., Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-96; Estate of Proios v. Commissioner, supra. Other times,
he or she will not. E.g., Estate of Scanlan v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-331, affd. without published opinion 116 F.3d
1476 (5th Cir. 1997); Mandelbaum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1995-
255 Aided by our common sense, we weigh the helpfulness and
persuasiveness of an expert’s testimony in light of his or her
qualifications and with due regard to all other credible evidence
in the record. Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner,
supra at 85. We may embrace or reject an expert’s opinion in
toto, or we may pick and choose the portions of the opinion to
adopt. Helvering v. Natl. Grocery Co., 304 U.S. at 294-295;
Silverman v. Commissioner, 538 F.2d 927, 933 (2d Cir. 1976),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1974-285; IT & S of Iowa, Inc. v. Commissioner,
97 T.C. 496, 508 (1991); see also Pabst Brewing Co. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-506. We are not bound by an
expert’s opinion and will reject an expert’s opinion to the
extent that it is contrary to the judgment we form on the basis
of our understanding of the record as a whole. Orth v.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011