Alfred E. Gallade - Page 9

                                        - 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