- 71 -
fying. We conclude that Mme. Koo did not testify at trial be-
cause petitioner did not intend to call Mme. Koo as a witness,
rather than for any of the reasons advanced by petitioner on
brief.
Based on our review of the entire record in these cases, we
will draw an adverse inference from petitioner's failure to call
Mme. Koo as a witness.47
B. Evidentiary Objections
We now deal with the admissibility of certain exhibits to
which the parties stipulated, but as to which one of the parties
preserved an evidentiary objection in their stipulations.48 At
trial, we admitted those exhibits into evidence conditionally,
subject to our ruling on their admissibility.
1. Petitioner's Income Tax Returns
Petitioner objected in the stipulations on grounds of
relevance to the admission of his individual Federal income tax
47 Even if we were not to draw such an adverse inference, our
findings and holdings in these cases would not change.
48 The parties' stipulation of facts was received by the Court
at the call of these cases from the calendar on Oct. 25, 1993,
and was filed with the Court at the beginning of the trial later
that day. The Court did not rule on the evidentiary objections
stated in the stipulations because it did not have sufficient
time prior to trial to consider them or the parties' voluminous
stipulations and the exhibits attached thereto. That was because
of the time constraints placed on the Court attributable to other
Court business that had previously been scheduled to take place
on Oct. 25, 1993, and the need to schedule the trial in these
cases on that same day in order to accommodate a witness
subpoenaed by petitioner only three business days prior to the
first day of the trial session, see supra note 46.
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011