Sunoco, Inc. and Subsidiaries - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
                  Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which                    
             governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides:                 

                       If scientific, technical, or other                             
                  specialized knowledge will assist the trier of                      
                  fact to understand the evidence or to determine                     
                  a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an                          
                  expert by knowledge, skill, experience, train-                      
                  ing, or education, may testify thereto in the                       
                  form of an opinion or otherwise.* * *                               

             Thus, expert testimony is admissible under rule 702 if                   
             it assists the Court to understand the evidence or to                    
             determine a fact in issue.                                               
                  The parties agree that the subject issue, involving                 
             the interpretation of section 1.861-8(e)(2), Income Tax                  
             Regs., is a question of law and that there are no facts                  
             in dispute.  Thus, the question we must answer is whether                
             Dr. Ballentine's testimony aids the Court in understanding               
             the evidence.  Dr. Ballentine's testimony provides economic              
             examples and policy reasons as to why the appropriate                    
             measure of interest expense is net interest expense.                     
             Petitioner's brief reiterates these same concepts and                    
             includes the same examples.                                              
                  We find that Dr. Ballentine's report and testimony                  
             merely advocate petitioner's position and do not aid the                 
             Court "to understand the evidence or to determine a fact                 








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