- 48 -
OPINION
I. An Overview
The record in this case presents testimony and documentary
evidence so internally inconsistent and implausible on its face
that we cannot credit it. Petitioner and Ms. Chen were
petitioners’ primary witnesses.
Throughout the examination phase of this case, pretrial
preparation, and the subsequent trial, petitioner sought to limit
his testimony and evidence by claiming that confidentiality
agreements with respect to his employment and a protective order
entered by Multnomah County Circuit Court in the divorce case
with Kumiko Talmage required him to do so.
The stipulated protective order agreed to by petitioner and
Kumiko Talmage prohibited disclosure of any documents and
testimony in the divorce case file in perpetuity. We have
previously denied petitioner’s motion in limine for exclusion of
documents and testimony in the divorce case. The protective
order was not issued by the Multnomah County Circuit Court to
resolve a controversy but simply to approve the parties’
stipulated agreement, and petitioner and Kumiko Talmage were
material witnesses in this case. See Melea Ltd. v. Commissioner,
118 T.C. 218, 223-226 (2002).
The confidentiality agreement dated January 10, 1993, is the
only such agreement introduced into the record. The
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008