- 54 -
be introduced at the further trial in order to determine the
entries to which respondent would object and the entries to which
respondent would not object.
At the further trial in this case, respondent requested, and
the Court granted, additional time in order for respondent to
identify for the Court the entries in respondent’s workpapers to
which respondent was objecting. The Court advised the parties at
the further trial that it would reserve ruling on the admissibil-
ity of the entries in respondent’s workpapers to which respondent
was objecting until respondent had the opportunity to identify
such entries and that it would admit conditionally any testimony
which the parties elicited at the further trial with respect to
respondent’s workpapers, subject to the Court’s ruling on the
admissibility of the entries in such workpapers to which respon-
dent was objecting. At the conclusion of the further trial in
this case, respondent had not had the opportunity to review
respondent’s workpapers in order to identify the entries in such
workpapers to which respondent was objecting. Consequently, the
Court permitted respondent to identify in respondent’s opening
brief any such entries and allowed the parties to present argu-
ments on brief with respect to the admissibility of the entries
in respondent’s workpapers to which respondent was objecting.
It is our understanding that, of the 51 entries in respon-
dent’s workpapers which relate to deposits that petitioner
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011