- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011