Opinion ID: 200019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The tax calculations

Text: 77 Sun Oil first contends that Calero's testimony should have been excluded because her damages calculation was flawed. According to Sun Oil, Calero neglected to take into account Seahorse's failure to pay various taxes. It argues that if Seahorse had properly accounted for its tax obligations, its profits (and thus, damages) would have been minimal at best. Sun Oil inexplicably neither pinpoints the disputed testimony nor discusses the actual figures that allegedly would have undercut Calero's testimony. Our review of Calero's testimony provides no support for Sun Oil's claim: Calero testified that she considered the provisions of Seahorse's tax exemption decree in conjunction with its historical sales. 10 From that analysis, Calero concluded that approximately fifty percent of the sales were for tax exempt vessels, 11 and that the remainder of the sales would require an assessment of forty-two percent, the normal tax rate. Calero used those figures to conclude that, even with its tax obligations, Seahorse would have carried a profit in each of fiscal years 1992 through 1996. 78 Given Calero's plain testimony and Sun Oil's failure to meaningfully point out any discrepancy in the record, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in allowing Calero's testimony. Moreover, to the extent that Sun Oil sought to prove that Calero's tax calculations were flawed, it followed the proper course of action by rebutting that testimony with its own expert. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.). The well known adage that reasonable people can disagree applies here full force. That the jury found in Seahorse's favor does not mean that the district court erred in admitting the testimony.