- 7 -
the parties to brief the admissibility of Mr. Marx's reports and
the Cardenas reports.
The estate disputes the admissibility of Mr. Marx's reports
on several grounds. Chiefly, however, the estate argues that the
Cardenas reports are inadmissible hearsay pursuant to rule 802 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence. Additionally, the estate argues
that if the Cardenas reports were excluded, it would cause Mr.
Marx's reports to become invalid in accordance with the above-
quoted disclaimer. Respondent contends that the Cardenas reports
are not hearsay because they constitute admissions by the estate.
Rule 801(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence expressly
provides that any statement offered against a party where that
party has manifested an adoption or belief in the statement's
truth is admissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B). Statements
admitted pursuant to rule 801(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence are admissible only against parties who have adopted
them or who bear a specified relationship to the declarant. See
Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-559. In
the instant case, the Cardenas reports were given to respondent
before trial by the estate's counsel. The reports were not
obtained by respondent directly from the estate's experts. The
estate supplied the reports to respondent as representations of
the values (and the data underlying those values) of MVN and MVS.
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