Avoid Losing a Daubert Challenge: Some Best Practices for Expert Witnesses
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Judges and juries base their decisions partly on the information presented by forensic accountant expert witnesses.
“In addition, judges and juries base their decisions partly on the information presented by FA expert witnesses (Crumbley & Cheng, 2014;Crumbley, Heitger, & Smith, 2005).”
From Methodological Deficiencies in the Expert Testimony of Forensic Accountants: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Judicial Statements Pertaining to Daubert Exclusions (2021) · cites this paper as Crumbley & Cheng, 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A synthesis of non-fraud forensic accounting research
DiGabriele, J. A., Heitger, L. E., & Riley, R. (. (2020) · Journal of Forensic Accounting Research · doi:10.2308/jfar-19-034 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Abukhalaf, R., Aldridge, M. M., & Smith, J. A. (2021) · Journal of Accounting, Finance and Auditing Studies · doi:10.32602/jafas.2021.016 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Crumbley, D. L., & Cheng, C. C.
- Affiliations
- Louisiana State University (US)
- Venue
- The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research
- Publisher
- American Accounting Association
- 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