Gilbert Vasquez - Page 21

                                       - 21 -                                         
               2.  Senatorial Office Press Release                                    
               Exhibit 23-P is a February 27, 2002, press release from the            
          office of Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, which asserts             
          that in 2001 respondent lost tax returns and other documents from           
          about 71,000 people from “upstate” New York and New England.  The           
          press release states that employees at a Pittsburgh,                        
          Pennsylvania, bank “reportedly destroyed or hid thousands of tax            
          documents * * * because they felt they could not meet the IRS’              
          processing deadlines.”  Respondent objects on the grounds of                
          hearsay and relevance.  Petitioner’s position is:                           
               the document covers error related to lost documents                    
               similar in time to the documents petitioner claimed                    
               were lost by the IRS.  As such, this tends to prove the                
               IRS looses [sic] documents on occasion, which satisfies                
               the relevancy requirement.                                             
          As to the hearsay objection, petitioner directs our attention to            
          all or part of rules 801, 802, 803, 807, 901(b), 902, 1001, and             
          1005 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.                                      
               The statements as to matters of fact asserted in Exhibit 23-           
          P relate to documents lost 2 years before the events we deal with           
          in the instant case, by an office some 2,000 miles from                     
          respondent’s offices in the instant case, and lost because a                
          private contractor’s employees were concerned about deadlines               
          imposed on them by respondent.  The matter dealt with in Exhibit            
          23-P is so remote from “any fact that is of consequence to the              
          determination of the action” before us that we conclude Exhibit             






Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011