Opinion ID: 1537146
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gary Pokrant

Text: KLP's counsel objected to Pokrant's calculation of the purchase price owed by the association under the contract: Your Honor, this witness issued a report certifying a calculation based upon the IRS depreciation. He is not here to testifyto interpret a contract and the price of the contract. The contract speaks for itself. The trial court initially agreed with the objection, but decided to hear Pokrant's testimony subject to the objection. After hearing Pokrant testify, the trial court overruled KLP's objection. The decision whether to admit or require expert testimony on a particular state of facts is confided to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we have described that discretion as `broad.' Varner v. District of Columbia, 891 A.2d 260, 266 (D.C.2006). On this record, it is perfectly understandable why the trial court decided to admit Pokrant's expert testimony. Pokrant is a tax analyst at an accounting firm that was familiar with KLP's affairs at the time the initial investments were made and during the accelerated depreciations period. [26] Pokrant calculated the purchase price of the property, see note 15, supra, which was disclosed to KLP prior to trial. Indeed, KLP deposed Pokrant before trial and stipulated to the accuracy of his calculation based on the relevant I.R.S.Code provision, § 167(k)(2)(B)(iii). As noted, KLP's sole objection at trial, as on appeal, is based on its view that the amount thus derived constitutes only part of the purchase price set out in the TLOA, and that the amount of the outstanding deed of trust should be included in the purchase price. This is an interpretation of the TLOA that we have already rejected as a matter of law because the contract clearly provides that the purchase price is to be calculated solely in accordance with § 167(k)(2)(B)(iii). Therefore, any opinion that Pokrant may have expressed about the connection between the calculation based on the Internal Revenue Code provision and the purchase price called for under the TLOA was, at best, superfluous. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court that the tenants' association has a contractual option to purchase the property for $584,132, and that it is entitled to specific performance of the contract, is Affirmed.