- 13 -
But as we have noted, respondent has stipulated and, therefore,
established in Mr. Maynard's case, that the payments were for
consulting services and that the entire $52,999.50 is includable in
Mr. Maynard's taxable income. This stipulation is obviously
advantageous to the Commissioner in Mr. Maynard's case and, in
accordance with the stipulation, the Court will redetermine Mr.
Maynard's tax deficiency by including the payments in his taxable
income.
The inconsistency between the Commissioner's stipulation in
Maynard v. Commissioner, docket No. 13220-93, that the payments to
Mr. Maynard were income from consulting services, and her position
in the present case that the exact same payments were not for
consulting services is one that we find most troublesome.6 At
trial, neither party in this case mentioned the stipulation in Mr.
Maynard's case, and, except for an oblique reference to that
stipulation in petitioner's reply brief, there was no argument
about its legal implications for petitioner. In her reply brief,
petitioner asks us to take judicial notice of the stipulation in
Mr. Maynard's case but makes no argument as to how we can turn a
stipulation in one case into a finding of fact in another. Of
course, this Court may take judicial notice of its own records,
including any pleadings and stipulations filed by the parties,7 but
6See Andrews v. Commissioner, 73 AFTR2d 94-660 (9th Cir.
1993).
7See United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1457 n.5 (11th
(continued...)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011