- 14 -
hereto as Exhibit C,[9] that the 2001 and 2002 income
taxes at issue, plus penalties and interest, had been
properly assessed against petitioner after he was
issued notices of deficiency for 2001 and 2002 and
failed to contest the notices in Tax Court. * * *
At the time the determinations set forth in the notice of
determination and the attachment to that notice were made, the
settlement officer was aware of and relied upon, inter alia,
respondent’s issuance of the 2001 notice of deficiency and the
2002 notice of deficiency.10
8(...continued)
Although petitioner might not be able to decode the respective
coded transcripts of account with respect to petitioner’s taxable
years 2001 and 2002, the settlement officer’s declaration makes
clear that the settlement officer was able to do so.
9Petitioner also raises an evidentiary objection under rule
1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) with respect to the
respective coded transcripts of account relating to petitioner’s
taxable years 2001 and 2002. According to petitioner, each such
transcript is a summary record within the meaning of that rule.
FRE 1006 provides that the contents of voluminous writings that
cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in
summary form if the writing is made available for examination or
copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and
place. The respective coded transcripts of account with respect
to petitioner’s taxable years 2001 and 2002 are not summary
records within the meaning of FRE 1006. As discussed supra note
8, those respective transcripts are coded computer-generated
transcripts that show certain information in the official com-
puter records of the IRS with respect to petitioner’s taxable
years 2001 and 2002. We note that, even if we were to decline to
consider the respective coded transcripts of account with respect
to petitioner’s taxable years 2001 and 2002, our findings and
conclusions herein would not change.
10We reject petitioner’s assertion that there is a genuine
issue of material fact regarding whether, at the time the deter-
minations set forth in the notice of determination and the
attachment to that notice were made, the settlement officer
considered respondent’s issuance of the 2001 notice of deficiency
(continued...)
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007