- 18 -
the income tax deficiencies and penalties at issue in these
cases.
B. Exclusion of Evidence
Petitioners offered documents into evidence at the further
trial that they had not exchanged or identified in writing as
required by our standing pretrial orders dated April 22, August
24, and November 29, 1994, and other orders dated July 10, July
19, July 24, and October 7, 1996. We did not admit the documents
into evidence. Petitioners contend that it is unfair to exclude
the evidence that they offered. We disagree.
Petitioners do not deny receiving any of these orders. Mr.
Owens testified that he understood that the Court required the
parties to identify the documents in writing and exchange them
before trial. Petitioners do not claim that they tried to comply
with these orders. Materials not provided in compliance with our
pretrial orders may be excluded from evidence. Moretti v.
Commissioner, 77 F.3d 637, 644 (2d Cir. 1996). Exclusion of
documents because they were not exchanged as required by the
standing pretrial order is particularly justified if they are
complex and voluminous, as here. See Kodak v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1991-485, affd. without published opinion 14 F.3d 47 (3d
Cir. 1993). We conclude that we properly sustained respondent's
objection.
We admitted the documents into evidence that petitioners had
shown to Poole. Those documents do not establish that
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011