- 15 -
remote in time to support a finding that she forged petitioner’s
name to the consent document. Petitioner’s arguments
notwithstanding, the notice of deficiency for his and Wynne’s
1980 Federal income taxes is valid and timely.
We would reach this conclusion even if we considered some
additional testimony which, petitioner asserts, supports his
contention that Wynne forged his signature. Petitioner states
that Wynne made some statements late in 1989 or afterwards to her
friend and employee Ms. Mellerke and proffers Ms. Mellerke’s
statements about those statements. Those statements were that
Wynne “had contacted the IRS and had reported Dr. Malachinski for
several things that he had not done, and also she provided a
document to the IRS shortly before they were divorced that he was
not aware of”. This document, Wynne is said to have stated, was
so damaging to petitioner that “he would be feeling the effects
of it for the rest of his life”.
Respondent objects to the introduction of such testimony,
asserting that such testimony would be inadmissible hearsay. We
need not address this objection, however, because the proffered
testimony, even if admitted, is too vague and inconclusive to be
of evidentiary value in determining whether petitioner’s
signature on the consent was forged. Wynne’s assertion that she
“provided a document to the IRS shortly before they were
divorced” fails to identify this document as the consent Form
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011