Plaintiff Nilesh Shah accepted a position as Vice President of International Sales & Service in 2019 and was assigned to live and work in Singapore for Defendants.
His employment terms were set forth in a letter of employment signed March 8, 2019, and later amended by a promotional offer, which was signed on May 4, 2021 (collectively, the “Letters of Employment”). Both Letters of Employment contain a similar provision titled “Singapore Expat Allowances,” which provides, in relevant part: “the company will also pay for tax assistance while on assignment to Singapore which includes Singapore tax obligations and tax filing assistance in Singapore.”
In the present action, Shah contended that these provisions obligated Defendants to pay his Singapore income tax liabilities for tax years 2019 and 2021, and that the Letters of Employment are unambiguous on this point. On the other hand, Defendants maintained that the clauses refer only to administrative or compliance-related tax assistance, not a financial obligation to assume Shah’s personal tax liabilities.
Plaintiff asked the Court to bar the report prepared by the Defendant’s expert, Dr. Doron Narotzki, an associate professor of taxation and business law.
Tax Expert Witness
Dr. Doron Narotzki is an associate professor of taxation and business law and director of the Master of Taxation Program at the University of Akron.
Narotzki’s work centers on “international, corporate, and personal taxation,” including “tax regimes, balancing tax treaty obligations, and regulatory reporting requirements” in the United States and abroad.
Discussion by the Court
A. The Scope of Narotzki’s Opinion
Shah argued that Narotzki’s report is no more than a legal opinion disguised as an ‘expert report’” because it (1) considered whether the Letters of Employment imposed a contractual obligation upon Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s Singapore taxes; (2) recited case law and applies legal doctrines such as the Plain Meaning Rule to the facts in the case; and (3) asserted legal conclusions that Defendants had no legal duty to pay Shah’s Singapore taxes under the Letters of Employment.
The Court agreed with Plaintiff. Portions of Narotzki’s report impermissibly crossed over the line between what can be fairly considered as expert opinion into territory which clearly constitutes a legal conclusion. Indeed, Narotzki’s opinion attempted to address the precise legal question now before the Court: whether under the Letters of Employment agreed upon by the Parties, Defendants were obligated to pay Shah’s Singapore taxes.
More than just state an impermissible legal conclusion, Narotzki’s report also sought to apply legal authorities and principles such as the “Plain Meaning Rule,” and standards for contract modification to the facts of the case.
However, because substantial portions of Narotzki’s report addressed industry practices and specialized expatriate tax concepts, the Court found that those parts of the report may not be excluded entirely.
Narotzki’s report properly explained how the industry uses terms like “tax assistance,” “tax equalization,” and “tax protection,” and describes common structural features of expatriate tax arrangements between employers and employees, such as gross-up provisions, hypothetical tax calculations, and reconciliation mechanisms, in a way that will provide useful context for the jury (should the claims survive summary judgment) in understanding Shah’s expatriate Letters of Employment related to Defendants.
B. Shah’s “Four Corners” Argument
Shah separately asserted that Narotzki’s report is inadmissible because it relied on extrinsic documents and maintained that this Court cannot consider such evidence when the Letters of Employment are unambiguous.
Shah’s assertion that the Letters of Employment are “unambiguous” did not bar industry-specific expert opinions on how “tax assistance” is understood in expatriate employment practice, where the term has a specialized meaning. The Court held that Narotzki may therefore address the industry meaning of such term regardless of whether the Letters of Employment are ultimately found ambiguous or unambiguous.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff Nilesh Shah’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Doron Narotzki.
Key Takeaway
Narotzki’s statements as to industry standards regarding expatriate agreements provide critical information that can assist the trier of fact in understanding specialized terminology and industry customs in an area far outside ordinary experience. So long as Narotzki’s opinion is descriptive of industry practices and standards—without opining on the ultimate legal question in the action or testifying as to the legal effect of the Letters of Employment—a distinction that is subtle but yet important—these portions of the report are admissible, pursuant to Rule 702.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Nilesh Shah V. Fortive Corporation |
| Docket Number: | 1:22cv312 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Ohio Southern |
| Order Date: | May 22, 2026 |
Leave a Reply