- 27 -
liable for the accuracy-related penalty at the time Mr.
Callison's letter was sent to respondent's representative and
(2) "Mr. Callison did not make any settlement offer or concession
to the revenue agent in exchange for the penalty not being
asserted."
FRE 408 provides:
Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or prom-
ising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or
promising to accept, a valuable consideration in com-
promising or attempting to compromise a claim which was
disputed as to either validity or amount, is not ad-
missible to prove liability for or invalidity of the
claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements
made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admis-
sible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any
evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is
presented in the course of compromise negotiations.
This rule also does not require exclusion when the
evidence is offered for another purpose, such as prov-
ing bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a con-
tention of undue delay, or proving an effort to ob-
struct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
With respect to respondent's objection to the first sentence
of stipulation 25, which states that "Respondent did not assert
the accuracy-related penalty for a substantial underpayment,
pursuant to I.R.C. � 6662(a), against MSSTA", it is not clear to
what point in time during the Service's examination of MSSTA that
sentence is referring. According to Mr. Callison's testimony,
the Service's revenue agent auditing MSSTA's 1989 return prelim-
inarily proposed that MSSTA was liable for certain penalties.7
7 It is not clear how Mr. Callison learned about what that agent
(continued...)
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011