- 2 -
through 1987.1 Pursuant to section 6330(d), petitioners seek
review of respondent’s determination. The issue for decision is
whether respondent abused his discretion in sustaining the
proposed collection action.2
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The first, second, third, fourth, and fifth stipulations of fact
and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this
reference.3
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 Petitioners also dispute respondent’s determination that
they are liable for the increased rate of interest on tax-
motivated transactions under sec. 6621(c). As to this dispute,
the parties filed a stipulation to be bound by the Court’s
determination in Ertz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-15, which
involves a similar issue.
3 Respondent reserved relevancy objections to many of the
exhibits attached to the stipulations of fact. 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 relevance of some exhibits is certainly limited, we
find that the exhibits meet the threshold definition of relevant
evidence and are admissible. The Court will give the exhibits
only such consideration as is warranted by their pertinence to
the Court’s analysis of petitioners’ case.
Respondent also objected to many of the exhibits on the
basis of hearsay. Even if we were to receive those exhibits into
(continued...)
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