Austin B. Ewell, Jr. - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         

          pages, each with 15 columns.  In Exhibit 9, George Belyea                   
          (Belyea), who represented petitioner in this case, used Lotus 1-            
          2-3 software to analyze 600 to 700 checking account transactions.           
               The contents of voluminous writings which cannot                       
          conveniently be examined in court may be presented in summary               
          form if the writings are made available for examination or                  
          copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and                 
          place.  Fed. R. Evid. 1006.                                                 
               Respondent contends that Exhibit 9 is not admissible because           
          it is an improper summary under rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of           
          Evidence and because, in violation of the Court’s standing                  
          pretrial order, it was not exhanged 15 days ahead of the first              
          day of the trial session.  Respondent contends that petitioner              
          did not provide a copy of Exhibit 9 until 2 days before the trial           
          session began, in violation of the Court’s standing pretrial                
          order, which requires the parties to exchange documents at least            
          15 days before the trial session begins.                                    


               3(...continued)                                                        
          he sought to authenticate on the grounds that his testimony was             
          barred by Rule 24(f).  Respondent’s counsel conceded that he was            
          not surprised by what Belyea said.  We overruled respondent's               
          objection, but invited the parties to argue this issue on brief.            
          Respondent did not do so, which we treat as respondent's                    
          concession.  See Stringer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 693, 708                 
          (1985), affd. without published opinion 789 F.2d 917 (4th Cir.              
          1986); cf. Kern Co. Elec. Pension Fund v. Commissioner, 96 T.C.             
          845, 858 (1991), affd. without published opinion 988 F.2d 120               
          (9th Cir. 1993); Marcus v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 824, 832 (1954).           





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011