- 26 -
15, 2002). This gatekeeping obligation applies to all expert
testimony, including testimony based on technical and other
specialized knowledge. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. at
141; see Fed. R. Evid. 702.
As trier of fact, we are not bound by the opinion of any
expert witness and will accept or reject expert testimony, in
whole or in part, in the exercise of sound judgment. Lukens v.
Commissioner, 945 F.2d 92, 96 (5th Cir. 1991) (and cases there
cited), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-87.
The three experts agree on some aspects of elements that
should be taken into account in determining what would be
reasonable compensation for Jack’s services to petitioner, but
even there they do not agree on what numbers those aspects should
lead us to. Each expert does a much better job of explaining why
the other side is wrong than why his or her analysis is correct.
To that extent, each expert has been helpful. To put it another
way, the experts have provided substantial assistance to the
trier of fact (Fed. R. Evid. 702) in identifying and winnowing
out the chaff; they have provided far less assistance in
identifying and keeping the wheat. See United States v.
Mastropieri, 685 F.2d 776, 786 (2d Cir. 1982).
(a) Hakala
Hakala is a principal in Business Valuation Services, Inc.
He had academic training in compensation theory and was awarded
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011