- 25 -
In short, Mr. Ostrove’s report at times fails to set forth
“the facts or data on which * * * [his] opinion is based”, in
violation of Rule 143(f), and, at other times, his factual
conclusions are either belied by the record or not germane to the
issue of reasonable compensation. Thus, the report fails to
satisfy the requirements of rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence and is, therefore, inadmissible.
c. Respondent’s Expert
Respondent’s expert, James F. Carey (Mr. Carey), is a self-
employed certified management consultant specializing in
compensation planning. He has been an expert witness in State
and Federal courts, and he has testified on compensation-related
matters. The Court accepted Mr. Carey as an expert in
compensation planning, which, for purposes of this case, includes
the setting of compensation for a particular individual.
Mr. Carey’s written report was received into evidence as his
direct and rebuttal testimony.
We will consider the merits of Mr. Carey’s analysis and
conclusions, largely relied upon by respondent, in connection
with our application of the Elliotts, Inc. factors.
4. Application of the Elliotts, Inc. Factors
a. Mrs. Harrison’s Role in the Company
The relevant considerations in applying this factor include
the employee’s position, hours worked, and duties performed.
Elliotts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 716 F.2d at 1245. Mrs. Harrison
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011