- 13 -
v. United States, 230 F.2d 919, 925-926 (5th Cir. 1956); Gaw v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-531; 2 Wigmore on Evidence, sec.
286(a), at 199-200 (Chadbourn rev. ed. 1979).
According to petitioner’s account, Mr. Judy’s inheritance
was the source of the amounts in controversy, and only petitioner
and Mr. Judy knew that the inheritance money was secreted in an
ammunition box under Mr. Judy’s bed. Mr. Judy’s testimony would
surely have had an important, if not decisive, influence upon the
resolution of the factual questions on which this case turns.
Petitioner has not convinced us of Mr. Judy’s inability to
testify. The one-sentence note from Dr. Allison that petitioner
submitted to the Court falls far short of providing the specific
and detailed evaluation of this issue which the Court demanded
and cannot fairly be interpreted to rule out the possibility of a
deposition. Under the circumstances, Mr. Judy’s availability for
a deposition seems to have been largely within petitioner’s
control. A close relationship exists between them: They are
related by blood; they live together; and throughout the
negotiations between the parties and the Court on this matter
petitioner has consistently purported to speak for Mr. Judy.
There is ample reason to expect Mr. Judy to have cooperated with
petitioner. Petitioner’s suggestion that respondent is to blame
for the failure to take Mr. Judy’s deposition is without merit.
Although respondent originally subpoenaed Mr. Judy to testify at
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