Albert Dudley Thrower - Page 13

                                         - 13 -                                       
          testimony based thereon is also unreliable and entitled to little or        
          no weight.12                                                                
               In the final analysis, it is apparent, on the basis of all the         
          evidence in the record, that respondent’s deficiency figures for            
          petitioner’s alleged illegal income are predicated on the unreliable        
          and inadmissible evidence of the photocopied pages.  In Rosano v.           
          Commissioner, 46 T.C. 681, 687 (1966), we observed that “the                
          Commissioner’s determination may often rest upon hearsay or other           
          inadmissible evidence, and we know of no rule of law calling for a          
          review of the materials that were before the Commissioner in order          
          to ascertain whether he relied upon improper evidence”.  By the same        
          token, however, if the Commissioner undertakes to demonstrate the           
          basis of his determination with unreliable evidence and in the              
          process convinces the Court that his determination is arbitrary,            


               12 In light of our conclusion that the testimony in question           
          was proffered as expert testimony, based on “specialized                    
          knowledge” of respondent’s witness as a former police officer, it           
          follows that the testimony is not admissible as opinion testimony           
          by a lay witness under Fed. R. Evid. 701 (providing that opinion            
          testimony by lay witnesses is limited to opinions that are not              
          based on, among other things, “scientific, technical, or other              
          specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.”).  Even if             
          we had concluded, however, that the opinion testimony in question           
          was not based on specialized knowledge within the scope of Fed.             
          R. Evid. 702, we would nevertheless disregard the testimony as              
          improper opinion testimony by a lay witness, in that respondent’s           
          witness failed to establish a reliable factual predicate for his            
          opinion testimony.  See Chagra v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-            
          366, affd. without published opinion 990 F.2d 1250 (2d Cir.                 
          1993); see also United States v. Williams, 212 F.3d 1305, 1310              
          (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“to admit lay opinion evidence rationally based           
          on the witness’s perception, a sufficient factual foundation must           
          exist”).                                                                    




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011