- 4 -
On November 27, 1995, petitioner met with respondent’s
special agents and was advised that he and his wife were under
investigation for possible criminal violation of the Federal
income tax laws regarding their failure to file Federal income
tax returns for 1990 through 1993. At that meeting, petitioner
represented falsely to respondent’s representatives that he was a
college graduate and a C.P.A.
On January 5, 1996, petitioners filed late their joint
Federal income tax returns for 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993.
3(...continued)
The basis for petitioner’s contention is that, during a
subsequent criminal tax prosecution of petitioner, the Government
did not give to petitioner a copy of the revenue agent’s written
summary of the statement petitioner had made during the January
1994 conversation with the revenue agent. Petitioner alleges
that the Government’s failure during the criminal proceeding to
produce to petitioner this document constitutes a violation of
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A) and that we should exercise our
discretion in this civil tax proceeding to exclude the testimony
of the revenue agent. Petitioner notes that, in appropriate
circumstances, courts may exclude in civil proceedings evidence
where the evidence was obtained in violation of an individual’s
Fourth Amendment rights. See Tirado v. Commissioner, 689 F.2d
307, 308 (2d Cir. 1982), affg. 74 T.C. 14 (1980); Houser v.
Commissioner, 96 T.C. 184, 195 (1991).
In this case, we decline to apply the exclusionary rule to
the revenue agent’s testimony. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 is intended
to encourage full discovery and eliminate unfair surprise at
trial. Because petitioner pled guilty, there was no criminal
trial. Any prejudice to petitioner’s plea negotiations that
occurred as a result of petitioner’s failure to receive the
revenue agent’s summary of petitioner’s January 1994 statements
should have been dealt with in the criminal proceedings. Prior
to the trial herein, petitioner was advised of the substance of
the revenue agent’s testimony, and petitioner had ample time to
prepare for that testimony. The revenue agent’s testimony is
admissible.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011