Estate of Henry A. Lassiter, deceased, Paula Ann Masters Lassiter, administrator, C.T.A. - Page 16

                                        - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011