- 63 -
indication of receipts being shifted to other accounts
or kept on hand by the T/P. Based on the bank deposit
analysis, gross receipts are accepted as reported per
IRC Section 61 provisions.
At the further trial, respondent objected under FRE 1002 to the
admission into the record of Mr. Oliveras’ summary. Respondent
further objected to the admission of Mr. Oliveras’ summary
because respondent claimed that Mr. Oliveras’ statements are
hearsay.
At the further trial in this case, in response to respon-
dent’s evidentiary objections to Mr. Oliveras’ summary, peti-
tioner clarified that he was not offering Mr. Oliveras’ summary
into the record for the truth of its content, but rather for the
limited purpose that it was a document prepared by Mr. Oliveras.
On that limited basis, we admitted Mr. Oliveras’ summary into
evidence and made it part of the record in this case.
On brief, petitioner asks us to allow him to change the
purpose for which he offered Mr. Oliveras’ summary into evidence
and to reconsider our evidentiary ruling with respect to that
summary. Although not altogether clear, petitioner appears to
take the position on brief that Mr. Oliveras’ summary should be
admitted into the record for the truth of its contents rather
than for the limited purpose for which petitioner requested that
that summary be admitted into the record at the further trial in
this case. Petitioner seeks on brief to have Mr. Oliveras’
summary admitted into the record for the truth of its contents in
order to establish through Mr. Oliveras’ statements on the second
page of that summary “that there were substantial deposits to
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011