In Touch Properties, LLC, David England, Tax Matters Partner - Page 8




                                         -8-                                          
          Exhibit No.        Obligor              Obligee          Amount             
          12-P           In Touch            Beverly Stool      $80,000               
          13-P           In Touch            Jeff Giddings       60,000               
          14-P           In Touch            Gene Longcrier      48,000               
          15-P           In Touch            Curzon, Cumbey      33,615               
          16-P           In Touch            Eugene de Verges    15,000               
          18-P         Lloyd Gilbert     In Touch                30,000               
          19-P           James Coates        In Touch            25,000               
               Although we initially deferred ruling on the admissibility             
          of the promissory notes, respondent’s counsel withdrew his                  
          objection to Exhibits 12-P, 13-P, and 14-P after he introduced              
          the original promissory notes as Exhibits 22-R, 21-R, and 20-R,             
          respectively.  In his posttrial brief, respondent conceded that,            
          under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), petitioner properly                  
          authenticated the remaining promissory notes containing the                 
          signatures of James Coates and Lloyd Gilbert.  Consequently, we             
          admit Exhibits 15-P, 16-P, 18-P, and 19-P.                                  
               Petitioner introduced three of the promissory notes,                   
          Exhibits 12-P, 13-P, and 14-P, to substantiate the consulting               
          fees deducted and amortized as startup costs on In Touch’s 2000             
          return and in support of his contention that the fees in question           
          were properly accrued in 2000.  However, petitioner never                   
          delivered the promissory notes to the consultants and did not               
          introduce any evidence to describe the dates, nature, and amounts           
          of the services allegedly provided by the three consultants who             
          were the obligees of the notes.                                             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007