-30-
In Hebah v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 729, 456 F.2d 696,
698 (1972), the Court of Claims stated:
Under our rule, the [trial] commissioner’s findings of
fact are presumed to be correct because of his
opportunity to hear the witnesses and to determine the
weight to be accorded to their testimony. A party who
undertakes to overcome this presumption must make a
strong affirmative showing to the contrary. Wilson v.
United States, 151 Ct.Cl. 271 (1960) and Davis v.
United States, 164 Ct.Cl. 612 (1964).
Although the presumption does not extend to the
conclusions of law made by the trial commissioner, he
saw and heard the witnesses and had a much better
opportunity than the court to familiarize himself with
all of the circumstances involved. In the light of
this situation and a consideration of the record, we
find that under the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, his conclusions are not unreasonable or
unwarranted by the record. [Emphasis added.]
In Stone v. Commissioner, 865 F.2d 342 (D.C. Cir. 1989),
revg. Rosenbaum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-113, the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed the
correct standard of deference to be applied by a Tax Court Judge
assigned to review a Special Trial Judge’s proposed findings of
fact under former Rule 182(d).17 In short, the Court of Appeals
rejected the proposition that a simple “preponderance of the
evidence” standard of review would suffice and instead held that
17 Former Rule 182(d), much like new Rule 183(d), provided
that “Due regard shall be given to the circumstance that the
commissioner had the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of
witnesses; and the findings of fact recommended by the
commissioner shall be presumed to be correct.” 60 T.C. 1150.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011