- 62 -
On the record before us, we find that the material entries
that are the subject of respondent’s evidentiary objection are
admissible under FRE 1007, and we overrule respondent’s eviden-
tiary objection to those entries. On that record, we also
overrule respondent’s evidentiary objection to other entries in
respondent’s workpapers which do not pertain to any of the
deposits that petitioner contends remain at issue in this case.
Accordingly, we admit respondent’s workpapers into evidence and
make them part of the record in this case. We also admit uncon-
ditionally into the record in this case the testimony elicited by
the parties at the further trial with respect to such workpapers.
The next evidentiary issue before us involves petitioner’s
new position on brief as to the purpose for which he offered into
the record at the further trial Mr. Oliveras’ summary of MZ
Trading’s deposits during 1993 (Mr. Oliveras’ summary). Mr.
Oliveras prepared that summary in connection with respondent’s
examination of MZ Trading’s Form 1065 for 1993. Mr. Oliveras’
summary set forth, inter alia, Mr. Oliveras’ conclusions with
respect to certain information regarding each of the deposits
that was made into MZ Trading’s accounts during 1993, i.e., the
date, the amount, and the payor of each such deposit, as well as
the following statements of Mr. Oliveras (Mr. Oliveras’ state-
ments):
The T/P did not provide an accurate reconciliation of
the receipts received by the partnership during the
9312 period.
The bank deposit analysis reflects less deposits than
the gross receipts reported on the return. This is an
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011