- 57 -
expert’s qualifications and with due regard to all other credible
evidence in the record. See Neonatology Associates, P.A. v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 85 (2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir.
2002). An expert’s testimony is no more persuasive than the
convincing nature of the reasons offered in support of his
testimony. Potts, Davis & Co. v. Commissioner, 431 F.2d 1222,
1226 (9th Cir. 1970), affg. T.C. Memo. 1968-257. We may embrace
or reject an expert’s opinion in its entirety, or be selective in
choosing portions of the opinion to adopt. See Helvering v.
Natl. Grocery Co., supra at 294-295; Silverman v. Commissioner,
538 F.2d 927, 933 (2d Cir. 1976), affg. T.C. Memo. 1974-285; IT&S
of Iowa, Inc. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 496, 508 (1991); Parker v.
Commissioner, 86 T.C. 547, 562 (1986); see also Pabst Brewing Co.
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-506. We may reject an expert’s
opinion to the extent that it is contrary to the judgment we form
on the basis of our understanding of the record as a whole. See
Orth v. Commissioner, 813 F.2d 837, 842 (7th Cir. 1987), affg.
Lio v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 56 (1985); Silverman v.
Commissioner, supra; Estate of Kreis v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d
753, 755 (6th Cir. 1955), affg. T.C. Memo. 1954-139; IT&S of
Iowa, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra; Chiu v. Commissioner, 84 T.C.
722, 734 (1985); see also Gallick v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 372
U.S. 108, 115 (1963); In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613, 665-666 (3d
Page: Previous 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011