- 16 -
were unaccompanied by any underlying business records and because
the accountants and translators are not identified in the record.
Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); see also Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
Petitioner contends that this case is like Gerling Intl.
Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 640 (1992), in which we
admitted summaries. We disagree. The summaries in Gerling were
made at or near the time of the events recorded in the summaries
and were regularly kept. Id. at 652-653. That is not the case
here. We conclude, as we did at trial, that Exhibits 79-P, 80-P,
and 81-P are inadmissible.
c. Whether Petitioner’s Costs of Goods Sold Were
Greater Than Respondent Determined
Petitioner contends that Exhibits 79-P, 80-P, and 81-P show
that his costs of goods sold were greater than respondent
determined. We disagree because, as discussed above at paragraph
B-2-b, those exhibits are not in evidence.
Petitioner contends that Williams failed to count all of
petitioner’s costs of goods sold because Panalpina’s numerical
codes made it difficult to retrieve all records of petitioner’s
imports. Petitioner also contends that the Panalpina records are
unreliable because the Panalpina employee who gave them to
respondent was not competent to do so because she was fired or
forced to resign.
Petitioner’s criticism of Williams and Panalpina misses the
mark because petitioner bears the burden of proving that his
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011