Opinion ID: 1177748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the cross claim

Text: Olsen's corporate income tax return for 1975, which was signed by its president, listed an expense item based on the amount that Owens claimed was due him. That sum was considerably higher than the amount awarded by the trial court. Owens contends that the income tax return constitutes a binding admission. Olsen explained that the return was on an accrual basis, and that the president, in signing it, relied on the expertise of the firm's accountants, Sites & Company, Inc. Judge Compton accepted the explanation furnished by Olsen. Even most of the authorities cited by Owens recognize that evidence based on a tax return is rebuttable. [10] It was certainly plausible that the Olsens relied on their accountants and could thus believe it was proper to include the full amount of the contingent liability as an accrued expense, regardless of whether this was the correct method of reporting according to Internal Revenue Service regulations. It is the trial court's function and not that of a reviewing court to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given evidence. [11] We hold that it was not error for the trial court to accept the explanation furnished and to give little or no weight to the evidence of the income tax return. AFFIRMED.