- 12 -
response to Interrogatory No. 1, indicating that petitioners had
not arrived at the $2.8 million figure, but rather that the
Federal Government had arrived at that amount by examining the
return of petitioners' son Marc J. Ford. In the penultimate
section of respondent's response to Revised Interrogatory No. 40,
entitled "The reasonable inference to be drawn", respondent
stated: "The adjustment for capital gains in the statutory
notice includes the gains from the disposition of the Tillex and
Beverly Development stock, which was purportedly sold by Marc
Ford in 1986."
Respondent's response to Revised Interrogatory No. 40
concluded with the following statement:
Furthermore, the petitioners' alleging, for the
first time during the teleconference with the Court on
April 30, 2002, that their admitted unreported $2.8
million of income for the taxable year 1986 is
unrelated to, and in addition to, the unreported
capital gains set forth in the statutory notice, is
inconsistent with their responses to the respondent's
interrogatories.
At the call of the instant case for trial, petitioners filed
the first motion now before us, entitled "Motion to Suppress
Evidence Illegally Obtained Through Violation of Fed. R. Crim. P.
Rule 6(e) and to Determine Issues of the Burden of Proof". In
their motion, petitioners assert that respondent had obtained
exhibit 3 in violation of rule 6(e). Petitioners urge that, as a
result of the alleged violation, respondent's use of the document
should be suppressed and, further, that respondent should bear
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011