Debra J. Hord - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE FOLLOWING TAXPAYERS”.  Petitioner’s name              
          and address appear on line 4, with a notation indicating that the           
          notice of deficiency was for taxable year 1996.  The Form 3877              
          bears the typewritten legend “CERTIFIED A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY             
          OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THE DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL              
          REVENUE SERVICE OF HOUSTON, TEXAS”, signed by an individual                 
          identified as “Chief, Examination Support & Processing Branch”,             
          and dated April 19, 1999.  The names and addresses of 12 other              
          taxpayers have been redacted from the Form 3877 in the record.3             
               Petitioner has not rebutted this probative evidence that               
          respondent mailed the notice of deficiency on December 29, 1998.            
          For instance, petitioner did not produce the envelope in which              

               3  At the hearing, petitioner’s counsel initially stated               
          that she had “No objection” to the admission of the Form 3877               
          into evidence but then expressed a concern that respondent had              
          not produced a witness to “support” it.  After legal arguments,             
          during which respondent’s counsel offered to produce a foundation           
          witness if necessary, respondent’s counsel again moved to have              
          the document admitted into evidence, and petitioner’s counsel               
          again stated, in response to the Court’s inquiry, that she had              
          “No objections”.  On brief, petitioner objects to the admission             
          of the Form 3877 into evidence, arguing for the first time that             
          because of the redactions it is “not in its original condition”,            
          and arguing that respondent failed to lay a proper foundation or            
          prove authenticity.  Because petitioner’s counsel expressly                 
          waived any objection at the hearing and on the record,                      
          petitioner’s objections on brief are untimely and therefore also            
          treated as waived.  See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1) (requiring that             
          “a timely objection or motion to strike [appear] of record”);               
          United States v. Kreimer, 609 F.2d 126, 133 (5th Cir. 1980);                
          Halle v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-116.  To hold otherwise at           
          this late stage of the proceeding would be grossly unfair to                
          respondent, who had offered at the hearing to take corrective               
          measures to overcome any objection.  See Advisory Committee’s               
          Note to Fed. R. Evid. 103, 56 F.R.D. 183, 195 (1973);                       
          see also United States v. Kreimer, supra at 133.                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011