- 13 -
that any exception to the hearsay rule applies, and it does not
appear that any exception applies. Rule 803(6) of the Federal
Rules of Evidence provides an exception to the hearsay rule for
records that are kept in the course of a regularly conducted
activity and made at or near the time of the event by a person
with knowledge. Petitioner testified that he was not familiar
with the records because his son maintained them. Petitioner’s
son did not testify. Petitioner has not met the requirements of
rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence because petitioner
is not a qualified custodian of those records.
Respondent did not object to the admission of petitioner’s
lists of equipment sold as a summary of petitioner’s testimony,
and the Court admitted them for that limited purpose. See, e.g.,
Randall v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 869, 874 n.4 (1971) (list
treated as a summary of testimony that the taxpayer would have
given); Fast v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-272 (list of
expenses treated as summary of taxpayer’s testimony); Hall v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-71 (document admitted solely as a
summary of taxpayer’s testimony and given no evidentiary weight).
The information in the lists (except for the invoices and
purchase orders relating to the three pieces of equipment
described above at paragraph 1 of the findings of fact) is wholly
uncorroborated. A taxpayer must keep adequate records from which
to calculate his or her correct tax liability. Sec. 6001; sec.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011