- 33 -
During the years in issue, Markette had several American
Express credit card accounts on which credit cards were issued in
petitioner’s name and in Betsy’s name. Petitioner and Betsy
8(...continued)
follows:
I had stipulated that the nonhearsay purpose for which
I was offering those returns was to prove, I believe I said,
salary and dividends. I would like to modify that to cover
all compensation and dividends.
The Revenue agent, in preparing her summary, included
other things in compensation besides salary, to include
particularly contributions to pension and profit sharing
plans. Those also would be nonhearsay purposes. We don’t
care if they are true or not; we just want to show what was
reported to the IRS.
The Court accepted the expansion. The expansion clearly did not
relate to deductions of travel expenses.
If respondent’s counsel overlooked the travel expenses
matter before the instant cases were submitted and later
concluded that it was important to secure a further expansion,
then respondent’s counsel should have either (1) secured
petitioner’s agreement or (2) moved before opening briefs were
due to reopen the record to expand the limited admission. We do
not believe it is appropriate to allow petitioner to write and
file his opening brief on the assumption that these exhibits were
offered and received only for a specified limited purpose and,
afterward, learn that these exhibits are being used for another
purpose. True, petitioner has (and used) the opportunity to
respond on answering brief. However, if the Court were to accede
to respondent’s request in this situation, then petitioner would
have been deprived of the opportunity to use the expanded
admission in crafting his own proposed findings.
There may be extraordinary circumstances under which such a
delay in presenting the matter may be excusable. We do not
decide that hypothetical; in the instant cases, we do not reach
the question of what we would have ruled if respondent had
presented the matter seasonably. We shall expand the limited
admission. Exhibits Q, R, and S were admitted at trial for
limited purposes and, as so limited, do not support respondent’s
proposed finding.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011