- 10 -
(5) A certified bank check in the amount of $24,806.83
payable to Mr. Judy.
None of these documents was shared with respondent before
trial, introduced in evidence at trial, or brought to the
attention of the Court before the record was closed. Attachments
to briefs do not constitute evidence and may not be considered.
Rule 143(b); Kwong v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 959, 967 n.11 (1976);
Perkins v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 330, 340 (1963). None of the
documents is on its face sufficiently trustworthy and probative
on the point for which it is offered that excluding it would
significantly detract from the truth-seeking function of these
proceedings. The first two documents are notarized by
petitioner’s wife. The authenticity of Mr. Judy’s signature on
the documents has not been established. The dates on the
documents indicate that they were executed several months before
trial. Yet, at trial, when petitioner requested that his father
be excused from testifying, he asked whether, as an alternative,
Mr. Judy might be allowed to execute an affidavit while sitting
in the car outside the courthouse. That was a strange suggestion
if petitioner had in fact already arranged for Mr. Judy to
prepare two such affidavits. The copies of bank records provide
too little identifying information to be useful. The account
owners and depositories are not identified. There is no
indication of any relationship to the Lillie Mae Ellis estate.
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