-325-
Third, because the Carolco securities had no value and the
contribution of film rights was in economic reality to SMP and
not SMHC, Mr. Shapiro concluded that there were no assets of
value supporting the contributed debts, and, therefore, those
debts were worthless.
b. Court’s Analysis
Under Rule 702, Fed. R. Evid., expert testimony is
admissible where it assists the Court to understand the evidence
or to determine a fact in issue. ASAT, Inc. v. Commissioner, 108
T.C. 147, 168 (1997). Expert testimony that expresses a legal
conclusion does not assist the Court and is not admissible.
Alumax, Inc. v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 133, 171 (1997), affd. 165
F.3d 822 (11th Cir. 1999); Hosp. Corp. of Am. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 109 T.C. 21, 59 (1997); FPL Group, Inc. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-92. Moreover, an expert who is
merely an advocate of a party’s position does not assist the
Court to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.
Sunoco, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 181, 183 (2002);
Snap-Drape, Inc. v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 16, 20 (1995), affd.
98 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1996). Determining whether expert
testimony is helpful is a matter within the sound discretion of
the Court. See Laureys v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 101, 127 (1989).
After reviewing Mr. Shapiro’s report and testimony, we are not
Page: Previous 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011