- 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 bearPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011