The authors analyze comments documented by the courts on cases where experts from within the Internal Revenue Service testified and taxpayer experts testified on the same cases. This paper focuses on valuation issues. Note that this does not include all cases where experts testified since it includes only the subset where internal IRS experts testified. The results indicate an increasing trend by the courts to criticize both experts. This paper reviews the courts' comments and addresses implications for improvement. Two internal IRS studies are compared. The conclusions are very similar between both the original and second analyses. The courts more often than not continue to be silent relative to the quality of experts in their courts. However, when comments are made, the courts have tended to be more critical of experts over the last ten years. Experts should testify to assist the court in making a determination and not be an advocate for other than their expert opinion. Experts can serve their clients well by realizing that valuation is an art, and work towards issue resolution to better serve their clients and reduce the impacts of litigation.