- 9 -
essentially indistinguishable from the events which were
determined to be relevant in Estate of Jung v.
Commissioner, supra.
We also find that the documents in question do not
create an undue risk of prejudice or confusion of the
issues. A court may exclude relevant evidence if "its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading
the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of
time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
Fed. R. Evid. 403. Petitioners do not point to any
specific facts which indicate that the evidence at issue
would create an undue risk of prejudice or confusion of the
issues if admitted. Rather, petitioners merely state that
"Respondent's documents would unduly prejudice Petitioners
and confuse the issues and should not be considered by this
Court in determining the value of the subject stock." We
find petitioners' conclusory statement in this regard both
unsupported and unpersuasive. The documents at issue are
highly probative and do not, in our estimation, create an
undue risk of prejudice or confusion of the issues.
Accordingly, we shall grant respondent's motion in limine
and overrule petitioners' objections to the admission of
the first four items listed above into evidence. We shall
overrule respondent's motion in limine and sustain
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