- 28 -
With respect to then ascertaining whether particular
adjudicative facts are capable of accurate and ready
determination, this Court has previously noted that “under rule
201, records of a particular court in one proceeding commonly are
the subject of judicial notice by the same and other courts in
other proceedings”, and “Also generally subject to judicial
notice under rule 201 is the fact that a decision or judgment was
entered in a case, that an opinion was filed, as well as the
language of a particular opinion.” Estate of Reis v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1016, 1027 (1986). In a similar vein, we
have observed: “Records of court proceeding are commonly the
subject of judicial notice. * * * Although we may take notice of
matters that cannot reasonably be questioned, the truth of
assertions or findings (as distinguished from the fact that the
assertions or findings were made) is ordinarily not properly the
subject of judicial notice.” Steiner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-122 n.10.
Given these standards, the situation at hand appears to
present a somewhat atypical scenario. While taking judicial
notice of the opinion by the Court of the Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and the fact that certain statements were made by
Government agents in the course of the underlying proceeding
would generally comply with the dictates of Fed. R. Evid.
201(b)(2), it is debatable whether the foregoing are in reality
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011