-34-
at 346 (where the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit discussed
Montgomery Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. United States, 222 Ct. Cl.
356, 615 F.2d 1318 (1980), and concluded the case stands for the
proposition that “reversal of the initial fact-finder is proper
if the objective evidence overwhelms the initial fact-finder’s
inferences from testimony and demeanor”).
A final point on the subject of deference. In Ballard v.
Commissioner, 429 F.3d at 1031, the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit stated that the Tax Court’s review and adoption
of a Special Trial Judge’s recommended findings of fact is
analogous to a District Court’s review of a magistrate judge’s
findings of fact, and, citing United States v. Cofield, 272 F.3d
1303, 1306 (11th Cir. 2001), it further stated that a magistrate
judge’s credibility determinations generally may not be rejected
without rehearing the disputed testimony. Kanter’s response to
respondent’s objections, filed under new Rule 183(c), includes an
argument that the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit made
it clear that this Court cannot reject the credibility
determinations set forth in the STJ report. We disagree. We do
not understand the Court of Appeals’ statement to mean that we
are barred from rejecting credibility determinations set forth in
the STJ report without first rehearing the disputed testimony.
Instead, the Court of Appeals observed that the deaths of primary
witnesses in these cases foreclosed retrial. Ballard v.
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011