Rameses School of San Antonio, Texas - Page 17




                                       - 17 -                                         
          collateral estoppel, petitioner challenges application of the               
          doctrine in this context.3                                                  
          III.  Burden of Proof and Status of the Record                              
               As pertains to tax litigation generally, the typical rule              
          with respect to burden of proof is that determinations by the               
          Commissioner are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the               
          burden of proving error therein.  Rule 142(a); Welch v.                     
          Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  As applied in the                     
          particular context of proceedings involving tax-exempt status,              



               3 To the extent that petitioner on brief renews its                    
          objections to respondent’s motion for leave to file amendment to            
          answer, and thereby to plead collateral estoppel, the Court                 
          affirms the ruling made at trial granting respondent’s motion.              
          For reasons more fully explained in the transcript of                       
          proceedings, the Court remains convinced that the liberality of             
          the Court’s rules concerning amended pleadings and the lack of              
          any real surprise or prejudice to petitioner counsel for                    
          acceptance of the amendment.  See Rule 41.                                  
               Petitioner also attempts to renew on brief evidentiary                 
          objections to exhibits subpoenaed from the TEA and introduced by            
          respondent at trial.  The objections are characterized as                   
          “hearsay” and appear to incorporate complaints about the                    
          specificity of the subpoena.  The disputed documents constitute             
          public records and/or records of a regularly conducted business             
          activity and were accompanied by a written declaration from the             
          TEA certifying their authenticity.  None of petitioner’s                    
          allegations cast doubt on the admissibility of the documents                
          under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), 803(8), 902(4), and/or 902(11).  It             
          is also noteworthy that nearly all of the proffered materials               
          were already a part of the record in this case on account of the            
          presence of copies in the administrative record.  Respondent                
          resubmitted the documents during trial in order to provide                  
          certified copies.  The Court is satisfied that petitioner’s                 
          objections were properly overruled.                                         
                                                                                     





Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007