Estate of Jack L. Bradley, Deceased, John S. Bradley, Successor Executor, C.T.A. - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          the residual value of the equipment (for resale or release                  
          purposes) at the end of the wrap lease and user lease.  The                 
          purchase agreement contained the identical indemnification                  
          provision as the Hambrose-Charterhouse purchase agreement with              
          respect to the initial equipment.                                           
               The additional equipment wrap lease, with the following                
          schedule of annual payments, was assigned to the partnership                
          pursuant to its purchase of the additional equipment:                       
                    Year                Amount                                        
                    1984           $  412,833                                         
                    1985           1,696,747                                          
                    1986           1,883,388                                          
                    1987           2,090,561                                          
                    1988           2,320,522                                          
                    1989           2,575,780                                          
                    1990           2,859,116                                          
                    1991           3,173,618                                          
                    1992           2,571,326                                          

               The Partnership                                                        
               Investments in the partnership were offered through a                  
          private offering memorandum (POM),6 which expired at the latest             

               6  Petitioner objects to the receipt of the POM in evidence            
          on the ground that it is not an original.  Fed. R. Evid. 1003               
          permits the admission of a duplicate "unless (1) a genuine                  
          question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2)            
          in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in           
          lieu of the original."  Petitioner has not shown either that                
          there is any question of authenticity, nor that it would be                 
          unfair to admit what petitioner has conceded is a copy of what              
          decedent received.  Fed. R. Evid. 1001(4); Keogh v. Commissioner,           
          713 F.2d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1983), affg. Davies v. Commissioner,            
          T.C. Memo. 1981-438.  Because we admit the exhibit under Fed. R.            
          Evid. 1003, we do not address arguments under Fed. R. Evid. 1004.           
                                                             (continued...)           




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