Cited by 6Legal processes and jurisprudenceJury Decision Making ProcessesLegal Cases and Commentary

Avoid Losing a Daubert Challenge: Some Best Practices for Expert Witnesses

Crumbley, D. Larry, Cheng, Christine C.·2014·The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research

Abstract

Accounting experts, like other experts hired for litigation cases, are subject to Daubert challenges. While the use of Daubert challenges was primarily in jury trials, a recent U.S. Tax Court case, Boltar LLC v. Commissioner, used the Daubert standards to discredit an “absurd” appraisal. To avoid the potential detrimental reputational and potential financial consequences and adverse effects on the clients, accounting experts must be aware of Daubert challenges and the standards by which their testimony will be judged. In this article, we discuss the Daubert challenge and the standards by which a judge will evaluate an expert's testimony in considering the admissibility of, or weight placed on, the expert's testimony. We also discuss some best practices and discuss the potential growing application of Daubert challenges in bench trials, as well as the potential that similar challenges may exist outside of the U.S. jurisdictions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2308/jltr-50765

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crumbley, D. L., & Cheng, C. C.
Affiliations
Louisiana State University (US)
Venue
The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research
Published
2014-03-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
41-53
ISSN
1543-866X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001389584
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
13.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Legal Cases and Commentary
Keywords
Daubert standard, expert testimony, accounting experts, admissibility of expert evidence, tax courts, bench trials, expert credibility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review