holding that valuation is a mixed question of fact and law; factual findings are “subject to review on a clearly erroneous standard” and legal conclusions, such as the proper fair-market valuation method, are “subject to de novo review”
How later courts described this case
- holding that valuation is a mixed question of fact and law; factual findings are “subject to review on a clearly erroneous standard” and legal conclusions, such as the proper fair-market valuation method, are “subject to de novo review”
- noting that “the importance of the trial court’s gatekeeper role is significantly diminished . . . because, there being no jury, there is no risk of tainting the trial by exposing a jury to unreliable evidence”
- reviewing the tax court’s determination of whether the elements for “reasonable cause” were proven and reviewing de novo the “determination of what elements must be present to constitute reasonable cause” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
- rejecting the argument that compliance with uniform published professional standards goes to admissibility rather than credibility
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part:
I concur in Part I, Part II.A.1, Part II.A.3.b, and Part III of the court’s opinion. The remaining parts of the court’s opinion, which describe and characterize issues that we ultimately do not decide, are unnecessary to resolve this case and have no bearing on the judgment. Federal courts are only permitted to rule upon an actual “case or controversy,” and lack jurisdiction to render merely advisory opinions beyond the rulings necessary to resolve a dispute. See SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403, 407 , 92 S.Ct. 577 , 30 L.Ed.2d 560 (1972); Hayburn’s Case, 2 U.S. 408 , 2 Dall. 409 , 1 L.Ed. 436 (1792), as interpreted in Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 351-53 , 31 S.Ct. 250 , 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911); see also 28 U.S.C. § 46 (b), (c) (2010) (stating that panels shall hear “cases and controversies”). Whether or not the Tax Court finds the extended discussion helpful does not change the fact that it is dicta and amounts to an impermissible advisory opinion.