- 17 -
With the exception of the affidavit by Rufus A. Chambers,
discussed below, all of the disputed items relate either to the
estate’s attempts to obtain a private letter ruling in this
matter or to respondent’s internal communications in preparing
the statutory notice. To the extent that these materials contain
pertinent factual information, such facts are otherwise present
in the record by means of uncontested stipulations and exhibits.
To the extent that the documents contain respondent’s legal
conclusions, they are without a place in our analysis. As we
have previously established, “a trial before the Tax Court is a
proceeding de novo; our determination as to a petitioner’s tax
liability must be based on the merits of the case and not any
previous record developed at the administrative level.”
Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 328. In
carrying out this mandate here, we cannot substitute selected
conclusions made by respondent in administrative papers for our
own. We instead must engage in an independent review of the
facts and application of law thereto. The disputed materials
thus are basically superfluous, and we sustain respondent’s
objections.
With respect to the affidavit of Mr. Chambers, the parties
focus their arguments on the standards for admissibility of parol
evidence to aid in construction of a will. The affidavit of Mr.
Chambers, the attorney who drafted the 1970 will, was prepared
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011