- 11 -
on the photocopied pages. Instead, respondent argues on brief that
the reasonableness of his determination of the amount of
petitioner’s 1988 alleged illegal income is established by the
testimony of respondent’s witness. At trial, the testimony on this
point was as follows:
[RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL:] * * * based on your
experience as a police officer investigating narcotics
activity, and your knowledge of Mr. Thrower’s involvement
in the marijuana trafficking, is it reasonable to
determine that Mr. Thrower had receipts of $477,920 during
the month of August ‘88?
[RESPONDENT’S WITNESS:] That’s correct.
In asking this leading question, respondent’s counsel
ostensibly sought to elicit expert opinion testimony on the basis of
the witness’s specialized knowledge as a former police officer,
notwithstanding that respondent’s witness was never formally offered
as an expert witness.10 Cf. Chagra v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-
366 (“It is well settled that the testimony of a drug enforcement
officer with respect to the valuation of illegal narcotics is expert
10 Upon commencing direct examination of respondent’s
witness, respondent’s counsel stated that he was calling the
witness as both a fact witness and an expert witness. At the
Court’s direction, respondent’s counsel commenced direct
examination with questions relating to the witness’s role as a
fact witness. Respondent’s counsel gave no overt indication of
ever moving to the expert witness phase of the testimony.
Before trial, pursuant to Rule 143(f) respondent submitted
to the Court a copy of a putative expert report prepared by
respondent’s witness. Respondent never offered the expert report
into evidence. The expert report made a fleeting appearance in
the courtroom, however, when respondent’s counsel produced the
version of the photocopied pages he offered into evidence by
physically detaching them from the expert report.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011