Alan D. Stang - Page 21

                                       - 21 -                                         
                    certification, unless the source of information or                
                    the method or circumstances of preparation                        
                    indicate lack of trustworthiness.  The term                       
                    “business” as used in this paragraph includes                     
                    business, institution, association, profession,                   
                    occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or                 
                    not conducted for profit.                                         
               Similar to petitioner here, the taxpayer in Spurlock v.                
          Commissioner, supra, complained that failure to produce Forms W-3           
          and 1096, among other things, rendered the declarations in that             
          case and records introduced thereunder inherently untrustworthy             
          and unreliable.  The Court dismissed that contention summarily.             
          Id.  Likewise, here suffice it to say that Forms W-2 and 1099 do            
          not cease to be complete and distinct records prepared in the               
          ordinary course of business merely because additional business              
          records, such as Forms W-3 and 1096, are not proffered as                   
          evidence.  See also Major v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-141.             
               C.  Rules 1002 and 1004 of the Federal Rules of Evidence               
               Petitioner also alleges that the Forms W-2 and 1099 are                
          secondary evidence inadmissible without proper foundation under             
          Fed. R. Evid. 1002 and 1004.  He goes on to state:  “Without that           
          foundation by the Respondent showing why the paychecks themselves           
          were not used by the Respondent to prove the actual receipt of              
          the income or findings by this Court that the original paychecks            
          were lost or destroyed, the secondary evidence used by the                  
          Respondent should not be considered.”                                       







Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011