- 17 -
and 2002 in determining whether to grant respondent’s motion.11
Petitioner does not dispute that respondent issued to him
the 2001 notice of deficiency and the 2002 notice of deficiency,
that he received such notices, and that he failed to file a
petition in the Court with respect to such notices.12 Where, as
is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is
11Petitioner also raises evidentiary objections under FRE
1004 and FRE 1006 with respect to the respective Forms 4340
relating to petitioner’s taxable years 2001 and 2002. According
to petitioner, each such form is (1) “other evidence” of the
coded transcript of account with respect to each of petitioner’s
taxable years 2001 and 2002 within the meaning of FRE 1004 and
(2) a summary record within the meaning of FRE 1006.
With respect to petitioner’s objection under FRE 1004, that
rule provides that other evidence of an original writing is
admissible under certain circumstances. We reject petitioner’s
argument that Form 4340 with respect to each of petitioner’s
taxable years 2001 and 2002 is other evidence of the coded
transcript of account relating to each of those years within the
meaning of FRE 1004. See supra note 8.
With respect to petitioner’s objection under FRE 1006, as
discussed above, that rule provides that the contents of volumi-
nous 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. We reject petitioner’s argument that Form 4340
with respect to each of petitioner’s taxable years 2001 and 2002
is a summary record within the meaning of FRE 1006. See supra
notes 8 and 9.
We note that Form 4340 with respect to each of petitioner’s
taxable years 2001 and 2002 is a self-authenticating document
under FRE 902. We further note that, even if we were to decline
to consider each such form, our findings and conclusions herein
would not change.
12Nor does petitioner dispute that he is liable for 2001 and
2002 for the respective deficiencies in, and the respective
additions to, petitioner’s tax that respondent determined in the
2001 notice of deficiency and the 2002 notice of deficiency.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007