- 2 -
1993.1 Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioner seeks review of
respondent’s determination. The sole issue for decision is
whether respondent abused his discretion in sustaining the
proposed levy action.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The first and second stipulations of fact and the attached
exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.2 Petitioner
resided in Escondido, California, when he filed his petition.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts
are rounded to the nearest dollar.
2 Respondent reserved relevancy objections to 8 exhibits
attached to the first stipulation of facts and to 143 exhibits
attached to the second stipulation of facts. Fed. R. Evid. 402
provides the general rule that all relevant evidence is
admissible, while evidence which is not relevant is not
admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401 defines relevant evidence as
“evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact
that is of consequence to the determination of the action more
probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
While the relevancy of some exhibits and portions of petitioner’s
testimony is certainly limited, we find that the exhibits and
testimony meet the threshold definition of relevant evidence and
are admissible. The Court will give the exhibits and testimony
only such consideration as is warranted by their pertinence to
the Court’s analysis of petitioner’s case.
Respondent also objected to many of the exhibits on the
basis of hearsay. Even if we were to receive those exhibits into
evidence, they would have no impact on our findings of fact or on
the outcome of this case.
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