United States' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs'

espect to a potential tender offer for Solutions 6. Dubinskydoes not consider or evaluate this possibility.It is therefore unclear why the "single economictransaction" assertion supports Dubinsky's ultimate opinion thatthe transaction was an "artifice" and "lacked true economicsubstance" (id. at 3), any more than it supports the conclusionthat this was a legitimate business transaction.Indeed,Dubinsky acknowledges explicitly that when viewed together theswaps appeared to be a commercially viable transaction witheconomic reality. (Id. at 19.)Given that this "single economic transaction" assertiondoes not support Dubinsky's opinion, a reasonable inference isthat Dubinsky is making a legal argument, namely, that the swapsought to be integrated for purposes of assessing the taxconsequences of BPB's contribution of the swaps to Bemont.Dubinsky claims to have tax expertise and at page 18 of hisreport, for instance, Dubinsky describes "the integration of the'swaps' into a single transaction."(Emphasis added.)"Integration" is tax jargon for combining two differenttransactions for purposes of assessing their tax consequences.If Dubins ky is arguing for integration of the swaps for taxpurposes, the argument is misplaced since the question whetherthe swaps ought to be integrated for tax purposes is a legalquestion, on which I express no opinion.- 6 -