- 12 -
the declaration executed by Mr. Holt6 do not qualify under an
exception to the hearsay rule because those documents were
prepared in anticipation of litigation and, therefore, they are
inherently unreliable. See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 113-
114 (1943).
As previously noted, the Commissioner is authorized to send
notices of deficiency to taxpayers by certified or registered
mail. Sec. 6212(a). Consistent with the mandate of section
6212(a), and in order to provide a means for determining the
dates regarding the issuance of notices of deficiency, it is
necessary and proper for the Commissioner to prepare and retain
certified mail lists in the normal course of operations. It is,
therefore, incorrect to state that the certified mail list was
prepared in anticipation of litigation. Rather, it is a record
of regularly conducted activities addressed by rule 803(6) of the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
The declarations executed by Ms. Petersen and Mr. Holt were
prepared in the course of litigation in order to satisfy the
requirements of rule 902(11) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The purpose of the declarations is to authenticate the certified
mail list. In short, the declarations show that: (1) The
certified mail list was prepared and retained by respondent in
6 Although petitioners do not challenge the declaration
executed by Ms. Petersen, our analysis is equally applicable to
her declaration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011