- 22 -
As a threshold observation, we note that an apparently
identical “secondary evidence” claim was rejected in Rodriguez v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-12, without further discussion.
Petitioner’s application here is likewise without merit. In
general, Fed. R. Evid. 1001 through 1008 address the
admissibility of originals and/or duplicates to show the contents
of a writing or record. The Forms W-2 and 1099 were at minimum
properly introduced as duplicates of business records under Fed.
R. Evid. 803(6), 902(11), and 1003, and quite possibly other
rules as well. Moreover, because respondent also properly
introduced under these rules copies (of both the front and back)
of paychecks endorsed by petitioner, we fail to see any surprise,
unfairness, or questions of accuracy or genuineness that could
lend credibility to petitioner’s complaints of secondary
evidence. See Spurlock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-124
(discussing alternative bases for admission of various of the
disputed documents in that case).
D. Rule 143 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure
Finally, petitioner makes a brief reference to Rule 143(b)
of our Rules and states that it should “trump” Fed. R. Evid.
902(11). Rule 143(b) provides that ex parte affidavits do not
constitute evidence. Again, petitioner’s reliance is misplaced.
Respondent has not attempted to proffer an ex parte affidavit as
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