Opinion
1829-17
06-14-2022
MICHAEL A. FIUMARA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Peter J. Panuthos, Special Trial Judge
On May 25, 2022, petitioner filed "Petitioner's Expert Witness Statement of Rick Speier". On May 26, 2022, respondent filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Petitioner's Expert Report, seeking to exclude said report being considered by the Court. On June 8, 2022, petitioner filed an opposition to the motion in limine.
This Court applies the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) when deciding evidentiary issues. See §7453; Rule 143(a). Under the FRE, relevant evidence is generally admissible, but a Court has discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its "probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed.R.Evid. 403. Unless otherwise, indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Opinion testimony is admissible if and because it will assist the trier of fact to understand evidence that will determine a fact in issue. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. Testimony of a proffered expert that expresses a legal conclusion does not assist the trier of fact and is not admissible. Alumax, Inc. v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 133, 171 (1997), aff 'd, 165 F.3d 822 (11th Cir. 1999). An expert who is merely an advocate of a party's position does not assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue. Sunoco, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 181, 183 (202). The determination of whether proffered expert testimony is helpful to the trier of fact is a matter within our sound discretion. See Laureys v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 101, 127, 129 (1989) (rejecting expert testimony in part as analysis attempting "to reach a conclusion as to [the taxpayer's] subjective intent").
It is not enough that a witness is qualified in some way related to the subject matter at hand. We have previously ruled that expert testimony about what the law is or that directs the finder of fact on how to apply the law in tax deficiency proceedings does not assist the trier of fact and is, thus inadmissible. Feinberg v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-211, at *10; Fed.R.Evid. 702(a). Consequently, the Court concludes that Mr. Speier is not qualified as an expert witness and the Court will not admit Mr. Speier's report into evidence per Rule 143(g).
Premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion in Limine to Exclude Petitioner's Expert Report and the Testimony of Richard Speier, Jr., filed May 26, 2022, is hereby granted.