You’re In or You’re Out (Part VII of VII) Will your testimony be admissible? Inadmissible? This series was written to help newly minted (and experienced) experts be mindful of Daubert, or a state’s own variation of Daubert or Frye throughout the litigation process. The key points made include: remember to only accept cases that you are qualified for, ensure you have a sound methodology in which to form your opinions before proceeding, know how to clearly articulate that you are sufficiently qualified and that your methodology is relevant and reliable, and work closely with the retaining attorney to respond to…
-
-
A Petitioner Relies Reasonably on His CPA in Gaggero v. Commissioner, the Tax Court Finds. That Makes a Difference: Here’s Why. In Gaggero v. Commissioner, Judge Holmes at the U.S. Tax Court disagrees with the IRS’s contention that the plaintiff conducted an improper scheme to avoid capital gains. In First Street Holdings NV, LLC v. MS Mission Holdings, LLC, Judge Markell at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court finds a lower bankruptcy court’s errors to be likely prejudicial.
-
Top State Courts Consider the Value of Goodwill, the Legitimacy of the Income Method of Valuation In State of Texas v. Clear Channel Outdoor, the Texas Court of Appeals considers testimony from an expert regarding the income method of valuation for the billboards; in Walsh v. Walsh, the Court of Appeals of Arizona reassesses the realizable benefits of stock redemption value in a law firm, and determines the net assets of the firm should not be conflated with the husband’s own goodwill based on his reputation and experience.