-5-
Co., stating that the applicable fair market value of an
11.6-percent ownership interest in Glenwood Bank was $1.1
million. The Shenehon report was a second expert report prepared
by Herber on behalf of Shenehon Co. as to the fair market value
of the 11.6-percent interest. Shenehon Co.’s first report
indicated on its face that it had been prepared by three
individuals, but only one of those individuals was available to
testify at trial. We excluded the first report from evidence on
the basis of our Opinion in Bank One Corp. v. Commissioner,
120 T.C. 174 (2003). There, we excluded from evidence the
rebuttal report of the taxpayer’s expert that was alleged by the
Commissioner to be tainted in its preparation by the significant
participation of the taxpayer’s counsel. Id. at 278. We held
that the rebuttal report was inadmissible because the expert had
not established that the words, analysis, and opinions in that
rebuttal report were his own work. Id. (citing Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 n.10 (1993)). As is
equally true here, we were not persuaded by a preponderance of
proof that the words, analysis, and opinions in the excluded
report were the work of Herber.
The Shenehon report ascertained the fair market value of the
subject shares by considering four valuation methods (book value
method, discounted cashflow method, public guideline market
method, and private guideline market method) and applying a
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