- 15 -
nothing could be gained toward disposition by granting
petitioner’s motion. We affirm our earlier denial.
Reopening the record for the submission of additional
evidence is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 331
(1971); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 286-287 (2000).
The standard for doing so may be summarized as follows: “A court
will not grant a motion to reopen the record unless, among other
requirements, the evidence relied on is not merely cumulative or
impeaching, the evidence is material to the issues involved, and
the evidence probably would change the outcome of the case.”
Butler v. Commissioner, supra at 287.3
Petitioner’s motion to reopen the record seeks to have the
Court admit his bank and credit card statements for 1997 through
1999. These proffered items fall short of the foregoing
standard. Even if admitted, the documents would not alter the
outcome in this case. The 3 years of financial statements in
3 The Court notes that prior to the trial of this case, we
contacted counsel for petitioner and respondent by conference
calls and implored the parties to acknowledge and obey the
Court’s standing pretrial order and the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure. These items require the parties to
stipulate facts and documents not reasonably in dispute and to
exchange before trial documents to be introduced as evidence. In
addition, the trial of this case was delayed for an hour to
afford petitioner an eleventh hour opportunity to provide
documents to respondent; this effort resulted in petitioner’s two
exhibits’, described supra in text, being admitted at trial
despite respondent’s objections.
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