Terry I. and Louise Major - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          determinations of petitioners’ tax liability and additions to tax           
          are correct.                                                                
          II. Admissibility of Respondent’s Exhibits                                  
               Respondent introduced the following exhibits at trial to               
          which Terry objected on the grounds that the declarations and               
          accompanying documentation did not satisfy the substantive                  
          requirements of rule 803(6) and rule 902(11) of the Federal Rules           
          of Evidence:  (1) Copies of Form 4340, for each petitioner for              
          2001; (2) declarations of (and accompanying Forms 1099) Julie               
          Yows, Donna Cooper, Deborah S. Kerns, and Marlene Mills; and (3)            
          copies of three checks from Dollarhide payable to Major Computer            
               In general, section 7453 and Rule 143(a) provide that Tax              
          Court proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the rules           
          of evidence (Federal Rules of Evidence) applicable in trials                
          without a jury in the United States District Court for the                  
          District of Columbia.  Clough v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 183, 188            

               7 The Court notes that respondent submitted two exhibits               
          consisting of checks from Dollarhide to Major Computer Services.            
          At trial, Terry objected to one of the two exhibits, identified             
          as “8-R”, but he did not offer any objection to an exhibit that             
          was substantially similar, identified as “7-R”.  The Court                  
          admitted both exhibits into evidence.  However, on brief, it                
          appears that petitioners now object to the admission of both                
          exhibits “7-R” and “8-R”.                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011