- 15 -
2002, Ms. Flandez completed her review. Ms. Flandez concluded
that petitioner was not entitled to relief from liability
pursuant to section 6015(b), (c), or (f) for 1982 through 1986.
OPINION
I. Evidentiary Issue
As a preliminary matter, we must decide whether a document
petitioner submitted during the trial of this case should be
admitted into evidence. At trial, petitioner sought to introduce
a “fraud referral” memorandum for Walter J. Hoyt III (Exhibit
120-P). Respondent objected to the admission of Exhibit 120-P on
the grounds of authentication, relevance, and hearsay. We
reserved ruling on Exhibit 120-P’s admissibility.
Petitioner failed to make any arguments regarding the
admissibility of Exhibit 120-P in her opening brief. In her
reply brief, petitioner stated: “Petitioner has addressed the
relevance and purpose of Exhibit 120-P in her opening brief, in
the context of proposed findings of fact.”
Petitioner’s requests for findings of fact in her opening
brief are not argument for the admissibility of Exhibit 120-P.
Merely requesting a finding of fact does not automatically make
the requested finding relevant. On this basis, we can conclude
that petitioner abandoned this issue. Petzoldt v. Commissioner,
92 T.C. 661, 683 (1989).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011