Martin H. Droz - Page 12

                                       - 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