John R. Rinn and Donnie J. Rinn - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
               At trial, petitioners called no witnesses and introduced no            
          evidence germane to Mr. Rinn’s receipt of income from his dental            
          practice during the years 1995 through 2000.  Petitioners did not           
          testify, but merely raised unmeritorious objections to                      
          respondent’s introduction into evidence of the records that                 
          Mrs. Rinn had previously provided respondent and the written                
          summaries that RA Hutchinson had prepared.11                                
               Petitioners filed no brief in this case; however, in a                 
          number of documents submitted to respondent and this Court,                 
          including their petition, petitioners have raised frivolous                 
          arguments relating to the definition of income, the voluntary               
          nature of the income tax, and their liability for payment of                


               11 Petitioners objected to these documents on the basis of             
          authenticity and hearsay.  We overruled petitioners’ objections.            
          First, with regard to petitioners’ authentication objection, the            
          records and the written summaries were properly authenticated by            
          RA Hutchinson’s testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).                 
          Second, with regard to petitioners’ hearsay objection, the                  
          records that Mrs. Rinn provided are admissible nonhearsay under             
          Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) as an admission by a party-opponent, and            
          the written summaries that RA Hutchinson prepared are admissible            
          under the business records exception to the hearsay rule under              
          Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).                                                       
               At trial, petitioners suggested that they were prejudiced by           
          respondent’s indication in his pretrial memorandum that he might            
          submit the aforementioned records and written summaries through             
          self-authenticating sworn affidavits under Fed. R. Evid. 902(11).           
          This rule provides one option for authenticating evidence;                  
          however, respondent chose the more salient option of                        
          authenticating the records and summaries through the testimony of           
          RA Hutchinson.  Petitioners were given the opportunity to cross-            
          examine RA Hutchinson regarding his testimony.  Consequently, we            
          find no prejudice to petitioners in this regard.                            





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011