Santa Monica Pictures, LLC, Perry Lerner, Tax Matters Partner - Page 264

                                        -330-                                         
          807, Federal Rules of Evidence, provides that a statement not               
          specifically covered by the hearsay exceptions of rules 803 or              
          804, Federal Rules of Evidence, but having equivalent                       
          circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by            
          the hearsay rule, if the Court determines: (a) The statement is             
          offered as evidence of a material fact; (b) the statement is more           
          probative on the point for which it is offered than any other               
          evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable                 
          efforts; and (c) the general purposes of the Federal Rules of               
          Evidence and the interests of justice will best be served by                
          admission of the statement into evidence.225  To ensure that this           
          “residual exception” to the hearsay rule does not emasculate the            
          body of law underlying the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is to be           
          used very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.                     
          Goldsmith v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1134, 1140 (1986); Gaw v.                
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-531.                                          
               We are not persuaded that Mr. Jouannet’s response to Mr.               
          Lerner’s letter has circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness            
          equivalent to those in the other hearsay exceptions.  Mr.                   
          Jouannet’s response was made to Mr. Lerner’s inquiry regarding              
          CDR’s intentions in its transaction with the Ackerman group.  The           
          response appears to have been written as an accommodation to Mr.            

               225 Petitioner, as the proponent of this evidence, must show           
          that each of these requirements is met.  See Little v.                      
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-270.                                          





Page:  Previous  313  314  315  316  317  318  319  320  321  322  323  324  325  326  327  328  329  330  331  332  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011