- 4 -
Discussion
A. Evidentiary Matters
Petitioner objects to the admission into evidence of various
third-party payment reports that respondent relied upon in making
the deficiency determinations. Petitioner contends that the
various Forms 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income (Forms 1099), and
Forms W-2, Wage & Tax Statement, in question are not “bona fide”
information reports because they were not “verified by a
declaration that [they were] signed under penalties of perjury.”
We have previously rejected this argument in similar
circumstances and see no need to repeat our analysis here. See
Spurlock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-124; see also Tinsman
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-55, affd. 12 Fed. Appx. 431 (8th
Cir. 2001).3
Petitioner also argues that the third-party information
reports were improperly admitted into evidence because they lack
adequate foundations and are hearsay. Ample testimony by
qualified witnesses established that the third-party information
reports satisfy the substantive requirements of Fed. R. Evid.
803(6) and 901. See Spurlock v. Commissioner, supra.
3 For reasons similar to those described in Spurlock v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-124, we also reject petitioner’s
argument that we should exclude, on the basis of respondent’s
alleged noncompliance with the Court’s standing pretrial order,
certain testimony and documentary evidence that respondent
introduced.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011