- 10 -
other inadmissible evidence”. Cebollero v. Commissioner, 967
F.2d 986, 993 (4th Cir. 1992), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-618; Zuhone
v. Commissioner, 883 F.2d 1317, 1325 (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1988-142; Jackson v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 394, 400 (1979).
3. Conclusion Regarding Burden of Proof
We conclude that respondent’s determination is presumed to
be correct, and petitioner has the burden of proving otherwise.
Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
B. Petitioner’s Evidentiary Contentions
1. Whether the Computer Records Are Admissible
Petitioner contends that the computer records are hearsay
and thus are inadmissible under rule 802 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence. We disagree because they are records of regularly
conducted activity under rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence.2
2 Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) provides as follows:
(6) Records of regularly conducted activity. A
memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any
form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or
diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from
information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if
kept in the course of a regularly conducted business
activity, and if it was the regular practice of that
business activity to make the memorandum, report,
record, or data compilation, all as shown by the
testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness,
* * * unless the source of information or the method or
circumstances of preparation indicate lack of
trustworthiness. The term “business” as used in this
paragraph includes business, institution, association,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011