United States' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs'

his case (by showing that admitting Beneficial as a member ofBPB did not change non-tax economics of the transactions forBeal) but Dubinsky ignores the relationship between Beal andBeneficial when that is more convenient for his argument (as inhis search for the missing management services agreement).Dubinsky's Janus-faced approach is difficult to understand.Dubinsky posits that the real reason Beneficial was addedas a member of BPB was to make it more difficult for the IRS tosee the foreign currency losses at issue in this case on anaudi t of Beal' s individual tax return. (Dubinsky at 25.)Dubinsky does not claim that Beal' s return preparer filled outhis tax return improperly and he offers no support for his claimthat obfuscation was Beal's purpose, rather than simply anunintended effect, if it had that effect at all.WAS THERE ANY NON-TAX PUROSE FOR THE PURCHASE OF 165,000 SHASOF SOLUTION 6 STOCK?Dubinsky claims not to have "seen any evidence that(Bemont's) purchase of 165,000 shares of Solution 6 stock was infurtherance of any true business goal."(Dubinsky at 26.) AtMontgomery's deposition the following exchange took place:Q. Why would (Bemont) Investments or Bemontbuy 165,000 shares in Solution 6 stock inNovember of 2001?A (Montgomery). I think several things mayhave entered into the discussion at thatpoint in time. One, we had the cash- 16 -