Opinion ID: 162075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of the Expert Report

Text: 92 The government submitted with the district court the deposition testimony and report of Andrew Zimbalist, an expert who offered a valuation of the Royals on July 31, 1990. His testimony was relevant since the bad debt loss claimed by the Royals was dependent on the proper valuation of the team at the time the loan was made. The taxpayers filed a motion to strike the report and to exclude Mr. Zimbalist's testimony. The district court subsequently denied the taxpayers' motion, and they appealed that decision. 93 The use of Mr. Zimbalist's testimony was solely for the purpose of valuing the Royals on the date of the purported loan. Because we hold that the transaction was a sale and not a loan, the value of the team at the time of the transaction is inconsequential to our decision. Thus, Mr. Zimbalist's testimony is not relevant, and this issue need not be addressed. 16