- 10 -
form of a report as to scientific, technical, or other
specialized matters and would allow an expert to express his
opinion in a report without being subject to cross-examination on
the facts and data underlying that opinion. All that would be
required for admission would be the mere showing that the
preparer was in the business of giving such opinions. If the
valuation report were offered into evidence by petitioner as
evidence of fair market value of Vancom Inc., we would not accept
the report without the accompanying availability of the author
for cross-examination.4 E.g., Pack v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1980-65.
C. Conclusion
Clearly, petitioner’s principal reliance on the valuation
report is not for the fact that Vancom, Inc., received it from
Arthur Andersen but for the opinion it expresses as to value. To
rely on the valuation report for that purpose, petitioner must
introduce it into evidence; i.e., at trial or at some hearing at
which evidence is received. Since we cannot accept the valuation
report as establishing the values it purports to determine, there
remains a genuine issue with respect to a material fact that
precludes rendering a decision as a matter of law as to whether
4 The character of the valuation report as opinion
testimony distinguishes this situation from those in which we
have allowed in business records without a live witness to
authenticate them. E.g., Stang v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-
154.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011