- 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 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011