Barkley Co. v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Respondent received documentary evidence 2 days prior to trial and did not offer it to petitioner for purposes of stipulation in accord with Tax Court Rule 91 and the requirements of an outstanding pretrial order. Respondent, instead, held the document for impeachment purposes, which is an exception to Rule 91 and the pretrial order. At the conclusion of the trial, respondent offered the document to impeach documents in the record and petitioner's entire position.
Read the full summary
Respondent received documentary evidence 2 days prior to trial and did not offer it to petitioner for purposes of stipulation in accord with Tax Court Rule 91 and the requirements of an outstanding pretrial order. Respondent, instead, held the document for impeachment purposes, which is an exception to Rule 91 and the pretrial order. At the conclusion of the trial, respondent offered the document to impeach documents in the record and petitioner's entire position. Held, that documentary evidence may not be held or reserved to "impeach" documents or an adversary's position and that the concept…
1Opinion of the Court
Barkley Company of Arizona, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Barkley Co. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 6954-85
United States Tax Court
89 T.C. 66; 1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 96; 89 T.C. No. 7;
July 9, 1987. July 9, 1987, Filed
Respondent received documentary evidence 2 days prior to trial and did not offer it to petitioner for purposes of stipulation in accord with Tax Court Rule 91 and the requirements of an outstanding pretrial order. Respondent, instead, held the document for impeachment purposes, which is an exception to Rule 91 and the pretrial order. At the conclusion of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- John C. Frank, Plaintiff-Cross v. Victoria BloomCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
- Doggett v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Barkley Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987