- 19 -
arguments for reasons that ring equally true here. See Rodriguez
v. Commissioner, supra; Spurlock v. Commissioner, supra.
For instance, in Spurlock v. Commissioner, supra, the
Commissioner had indicated possible use of the declarations in a
trial memorandum provided a little more than 2 weeks before trial
and had provided the affidavits and records to the taxpayer 2 and
3 days before trial. Id. We concluded in those circumstances
that the Commissioner had met the notice requirement of Fed. R.
Evid. 902(11), stating: “Petitioner was adequately apprised of
this information in advance of trial. Petitioner had sufficient
time to contact the witnesses named in respondent’s trial
memorandum, and she could have called those witnesses to testify
at trial.” Id.
The same observation applies to the instant litigation.
Petitioner’s complaints regarding the various time limits
applicable to discovery provisions fail to take into account the
straightforward expedient of calling Ms. Wittman as a witness.
The Court is satisfied that admission into evidence of the
declaration of Ms. Wittman and the attached business records did
not run afoul of the notice requirement of Fed. R. Evid. 902(11).
B. Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence
Petitioner further argues that even if the declaration was
timely and provided him with a fair opportunity to challenge the
underlying documents, the materials are nonetheless inadmissible
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011