- 23 -
Powers v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 457, 485 (1993); Goldsmith v.
Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1134, 1140 (1986).
b. Notice Requirement
Rule 803(24) of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires the
offering party to notify the opposing party of the particulars of
the testimony sufficiently in advance of trial to prepare to meet
it.
Respondent contends that petitioner had adequate notice of
Hodges' and Hogue's testimony. We disagree. Respondent's only
notice to petitioner was a statement in the pretrial memorandum
that the two agents would testify about the truthfulness or
untruthfulness of petitioners' witnesses and the facts
surrounding this case (i.e., this civil tax case), a case which
Hodges said at trial was not the subject of the task force's
investigation. Respondent did not give notice to petitioners of
any of the particulars of the direct examination, which covered
106 transcript pages.
Respondent cites United States v. Brown, 770 F.2d 768, 771
(9th Cir. 1985), and Piva v. Xerox Corp., 654 F.2d 591, 596 (9th
Cir. 1981), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit interpreted the notice requirement of rule 803(8)(C) of
the Federal Rules of Evidence.
In Brown, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court
properly admitted the defendants' passports where the Government
did not tell the defendants before trial that it intended to
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011