- 26 -
2. Becker
As we have recited above, petitioner contends that both he
and his partner, Feinberg, had a special relationship with Becker
and therefore were entitled to rely upon him as his other clients
were not.
At the outset the Court noted that Becker was on
petitioner’s witness list, but that petitioner’s counsel had
decided not to call him. The Court questioned counsel in this
matter because of petitioner’s specific reliance on his
relationship with Becker. However, petitioner’s obviously well-
prepared and capable counsel adhered to his decision not to call
upon Becker concerning the supposedly special relationship but,
instead, to rely upon Becker’s extensive testimony in the Jaroff
case.10 See Bresler v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 182, 188 (1975),
10 The colloquy concerning petitioner’s counsel’s failure
to provide Becker’s testimony about his close relationship with
petitioner and Feinberg is as follows:
THE COURT: I didn’t hear you mention Mr. Becker’s name
as a witness.
MR. RIZEK: We are not going to call Mr. Becker as an
additional witness. I think the 300 pages or so that
we stipulated to in the supplemental stipulation are
more than adequate to cover any points we wanted to
establish with Mr. Becker.
THE COURT: Well, that may be, but you’re going to talk
a lot about how these parties all had a relationship
with Mr. Becker and all that sort of thing and you’re
not calling Mr. Becker?
(continued...)
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011