- 30 -
Coy wrote Mr. Talbott stating: “As I had mentioned, I prepared
the return for [petitioner], obtained his signature, and mailed
the return to the Service Center on the evening of October 15,
1999.” This was brought to the attention of Mr. Talbott.
Accordingly, we may consider evidence regarding this issue
at trial, if it is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules
of Evidence.
D. Whether the Evidence Is Admissible Under the Federal
Rules of Evidence
While we are not limited by the APA’s judicial review
provisions in our proceedings arising under section 6330(d), our
review of materials not included in the Commissioner’s
administrative record is subject to the Federal Rules of
Evidence. Section 7453 and Rule 143(a) provide that the Court’s
proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the rules of
evidence applicable in trials without a jury in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia. Consistent with section 7453
and Rule 143(a), we must decide whether evidence in this case
which was not included in the administrative record is admissible
under the Federal Rules of Evidence in our proceedings arising
under section 6330(d).
Respondent moved to strike the evidence on the ground of
relevancy. “All relevant evidence is admissible. * * * Evidence
which is not relevant is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Relevant evidence “means evidence having any tendency to make the
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011