- 87 -
under the foregoing hearsay exception in order to show that the
financing structures described in Rev. Rul. 87-89, 1987-2 C.B.
195, in fact were "currently popular" at the time the ruling was
issued. Instead, petitioner asserts that that document is admis-
sible to show that the National Office was aware that those
financing structures were "currently popular" at that time.
On its face, the August 1987 memorandum seems to represent
only the views or state of mind of its author. Petitioner has
not shown that that memorandum is a statement of the institution-
al view or position of the National Office or that its author was
in a position that enabled or entitled him to articulate the view
or position of the National Office with respect to the current
popularity of the financing structures described in Rev. Rul. 87-
89, supra. Petitioner has not established the basis on which we
may impute to the National Office the state of mind of the author
of the August 1987 memorandum. That memorandum reflects only its
author's state of mind with respect to the popularity of the
pattern of financing analyzed in Rev. Rul. 87-89, supra, regard-
less whether that state of mind was correct. On the instant
record, we conclude that the August 1987 memorandum is not admis-
sible to show the state of mind of the National Office.59
59 Even if we were to admit the August 1987 memorandum into
evidence for the purposes advocated by petitioner, it would not
change our resolution of petitioner's constitutional and abuse of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011