- 9 -
We first consider the evidentiary objections to certain
stipulated facts. Respondent objected to the admission of
certain facts concerning a settlement meeting between the parties
at which petitioner’s counsel asked to have the section 6661
penalty waived. Petitioner seeks to introduce this fact solely
to show that he asked respondent to waive the section 6661
penalty, not to establish liability or validity of the
substantive claim.
Rule 143(a) provides that trials before this Court are to be
"conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable in
trials without a jury in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia." See sec. 7453.
Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that
evidence of an offer or promise to compromise or settle is not
admissible to prove liability or validity of a claim or amount.
Settlement agreements, however, are admissible if offered for a
purpose other than to prove liability or a claim's validity.
Wentz v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 1, 6 (1995); Tijerina v.
Josefiak, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) par. 38,943 (D.D.C. 1988)
(citing County of Hennepin v. AFG Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 149, 153
(8th Cir. 1984)); see also Sage Realty Corp. v. Insurance Co. of
N. Am., 34 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 1994); Johnson v. Hugo's Skateway,
974 F.2d 1408 (4th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the fact that
petitioner and respondent met is admissible for the limited
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011