- 8 -
Victorville property, slightly more than half of the $16.3
million valuation stated in the statutory notice of deficiency.
The estate did not raise the issue of the shifting of the burden
at trial or on brief. However, it is unnecessary for us to
consider the issue. Our decision rests on the preponderance of
the evidence, and is unaffected by the burden of proof.
I. Admissibility of Mr. Dicker’s Testimony as to Value
At trial, the estate sought to have Mr. Dicker testify as to
his opinion of the value of the Victorville property on the
valuation date. Respondent objected to the admissibility of this
testimony because Mr. Dicker had not submitted an expert report,
and so was not qualified as an expert under Rule 143(f). The
estate argues that Mr. Dicker, as general partner of Bear Valley
Partners, is an owner of the Victorville property, and is
qualified to testify as an expert as to value under rule 702 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence.2
2Fed. R. Evid. 702 provides:
Rule 702. Testimony By Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of
an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon
sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the
product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the
witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to
the facts of the case.
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