- 16 -
the statute’s underlying policies and with regulations allegedly
implying that substantial compliance is a proper standard for
evaluating deductibility under section 2056(b)(7).
II. Preliminary Matters
Before turning to the substantive questions raised by the
parties’ contentions, we first address several evidentiary
objections. Respondent objects to certain of the stipulated
facts and exhibits primarily on grounds of relevancy. Respondent
additionally argues that consideration of these items would
conflict with the principle of Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974), that this Court will not
look behind a deficiency notice to examine respondent’s motives
or administrative actions in making the determination. The
estate counters that the materials are relevant and that some
particularly should come in as admissions by respondent under
rules 801(d)(2) and 804(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Relevance is defined as “evidence having any tendency to
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than
it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Evidence
meeting this standard is admissible, while irrelevant evidence is
not. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. We conclude that the evidence in
question falls short of this relevancy threshold.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011