- 6 -
in issue". Fed. R. Evid. 702. Expert testimony is not
admissible for such purposes. An expert who is merely an
advocate of a party's position does not assist the Court
in understanding the issue. See Hosp. Corp. of Am.
v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 21 (1997); Alumax, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 109 T.C. 133 (1997), affd. 165 F.3d 822
(11th Cir. 1999); 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, 129 (1989);
Robertson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-130, affd.
without published opinion 87 AFTR2d 2001-1274, 2001-1 USTC
par. 50,276 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Estate of Halas v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 570, 577 (1990) ("In the context of
valuation cases, we have observed that experts may lose
their usefulness and credibility when they merely become
advocates for one side.").
We conclude that Dr. Ballentine's testimony does
not assist the Court in understanding the legal question
issue and is not admissible. Accordingly, we shall grant
respondent's motion in limine.
Most of the facts relating to the issue which is the
subject of this opinion were stipulated by the parties.
The stipulated facts and accompanying exhibits are so found
and are hereby incorporated in this opinion.
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