- 12 -
on petitioner's testimony, we do not believe that it establishes
error in respondent's determination regarding the charitable
contribution deduction claimed with respect to the Mark IV helmet
at issue.
The principal documentary evidence on which petitioner
relies to support his contention as to the fair market value of
the Mark IV helmet at issue is the Hetz report that was attached
to his 1991 return. We do not place any weight on that report in
determining the fair market value of that helmet. Petitioner did
not intend or attempt to call Mr. Hetz, who purportedly signed
and prepared that report, as a witness at trial.6 Mr. Hetz was
not even present at the trial herein. Thus, we are left with a
report that was attached to petitioner's 1991 return, that
contains what purports to be the signature of Mr. Hetz, and that,
6 Respondent timely submitted the written report of her prof-
fered expert as required by Rule 143(f) and the Court's standing
pretrial order. Petitioner did not timely submit a written
report prepared by Mr. Hetz or any other proffered expert. On
Jan. 3, 1995, the Court had a telephonic, pretrial conference
with the parties for the purpose of confirming that petitioner
did not intend to introduce expert testimony at trial, since he
had not submitted a written report as required by Rule 143(f) and
the Court's standing pretrial order not later than 30 days before
Jan. 23, 1995, the date on which this case was to be called from
the trial calendar. The Court informed petitioner during that
telephonic conference that since no such written report had been
timely submitted, he could not introduce expert testimony at
trial unless he were to file, and the Court were to grant, a
motion seeking the Court's permission to submit out of time a
written report pursuant to Rule 143(f). Petitioner did not at
any time file such a motion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011