It’s been said that stipulations are the “bedrock of Tax Court practice,” but Taishoff says when Dixieland Boondockery is in play, motions in limine are the new “bedrock of Tax Court practice.” And Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro is busily engaged in sorting out witnesses both expert, inexpert, percipient, and none of the above, as exemplified by Seabrook Property, LLC, Seabrook Manager, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 5071-21, filed 6/12/23.

The Seabrooks want Mac (name omitted) to “Testify as a Lay Opinion Witness with Percipient Expert Witness Knowledge Without a Written Report,” and so move, Order, at p. 1. IRS’ counsel want to preclude any of Mac’s expertising; Mac is a GA-Registered Forester and  has four (count ’em, four) decades of experience “regarding forestry practices on the Seabrook Property and the impact of those practices on conservation.” Order, at p. 1.

IRS says the Seabrooks are violating Judge Eminent’s scheduling order with this percipient expert witness with no report jive. Judge Eminent shuts that down, but Mac can rebut IRS’ witnesses.

“Petitioner’s Motion, however, also refers to [Mac] at several points as a ‘percipient expert witness.’ And it makes the following representations about [Mac’s] intended testimony: ‘he will use his specialized knowledge as a Registered Forester to testify as to how active forest management on the Seabrook Property interacts with the habitats on the Seabrook Property’ and his testimony will include ‘how effective timber management has helped habitats generally and not destroy[ed] them.’  These and other similar statements in petitioner’s Motion could be interpreted as petitioner requesting that [Mac] be allowed to testify as an expert witness without filing an expert report. Our Pretrial Scheduling Order… mirrors what the parties proposed and specifically states that ‘[a] party is prohibited from calling any expert witness as part of its case-in-chief if that party has not exchanged and lodged an expert witness report….’ An exception is provided when the expert testimony is offered as rebuttal testimony; however, petitioner’s Motion does not indicate that [Mac’s] testimony is being offered for such a purpose. Accordingly, to the extent petitioner’s Motion requests that [Mac]  be allowed to testify as an expert witness, we will deny it.” Order, at p. 2. (Citations omitted, but get them; this could be a good one for the next Slaughter of the Innocents, the next Tax Court admission exam.)

So Mac is a lay (nonexpert) witness on direct, but only as to what he actually did and does for the Seabrooks; but he can testify, whether percipient or not but an expert nevertheless, on rebuttal.