1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 147">*147 Petitioner filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of post-taxable-years' financial data.
89 T.C. 810">*811 OPINION
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion in limine filed on August 11, 1987, seeking to exclude from the trial of this case evidence of financial data and income tax returns for years subsequent to the years in issue 1 (post-taxable-years' financial data or data). The matter was argued by counsel and heard by the Court on August 14, 1987, and respondent's objection to the motion was filed August 31, 1987.
Petitioner, is a U.S. (Delaware) corporation in Rockford, Illinois. Sundstrand Pacific (PTE) Ltd. (SunPac) is a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner and1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 147">*148 is located in Singapore. The central issue involved in this litigation concerns certain adjustments and allocations made and determined by respondent pursuant to
The petition in this case was filed with the Court on September 12, 1983, and the case has been at issue since October 24, 1983. After approximately 4 years, discovery is complete and the case is now proceeding through the stipulation process toward trial. The trial is scheduled to commence1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 147">*149 on November 30, 1987. 3
During the stipulation process, respondent requested petitioner to stipulate to post-taxable-years' financial data. Specifically, respondent proposed the following paragraphs for stipulation:
89 T.C. 810">*812 92. Attached hereto as Exhibits 63-BK through 67-BO are copies of petitioner's Information Returns with respect to Controlled Foreign Corporations (Forms 2952) with respect to SunPac for 1976 through 1980, respectively. Petitioner objects to the admission of Exhibits 66-BN and 67-BO because of its view that these documents are irrelevant.
93. Attached hereto as Exhibits 68-BP through 72-BT are SunPac's Annual Financial Statements for fiscal years ending November 30, 1976 through November 30, 1980, respectively. All amounts shown in these1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 147">*150 Financial Statements are stated in Singapore dollars. The average exchange rate for all times material was 2.46 Singapore dollars to one United States dollar. Petitioner objects to the admission of Exhibits 71-BS and 72-BT on the grounds that they are irrelevant.
101. Attached hereto as Exhibits 78-BZ through 81-CC are petitioner's Annual Reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (Forms 10-K) for 1976 through 1979, respectively, which include petitioner's Annual Report to its shareholders. Petitioner objects to the admission of Exhibit 81-CC because of its view that it is irrelevant.
Petitioner agreed to stipulate to the 1976, 1977, and 1978 documents described in the proposed stipulation. However, as noted in the proposed stipulation, petitioner, pursuant to
1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 147">*151 Consequently, as above noted, petitioner filed its motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to the post-taxable-years' financial data. The premise of petitioner's motion is that the evidence is irrelevant and, therefore, inadmissible under
In his objection to petitioner's motion, respondent submits that the post-taxable-years' financial data is relevant. Respondent suggests that the data is helpful in increasing the Court's knowledge of the facts, and it provides a consistent overview to confirm his contention that an inappropriate intercompany pricing mechanism existed between 89 T.C. 810">*813 petitioner and SunPac for the years in issue. Respondent, however, relates that he does not base his determination solely on the post-taxable-years' financial data nor does he intend to use this data1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 147">*152 as evidence to support a specific method of making a
As a preliminary matter, during the hearing on August 14, 1987, respondent asserted that, under
Upon careful consideration of the parties' arguments, we agree with petitioner that the post-taxable years' financial data should be excluded under
EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON GROUNDS OF PREJUDICE, CONFUSION, OR WASTE OF TIME
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of 89 T.C. 810">*814 the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 147">*155
Any decision to allow or to exclude evidence under
Exclusion of evidence of low probative value is particularly appropriate when admission would result in expenditure of substantial trial time. In complex and protracted litigation, waste of the trier's time is a particularly telling factor.
The case before us is a protracted and complex
In cases with extensive records, we must attempt to limit our consideration to those facts ascertainable1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 147">*158 at the close of the taxable years before the Court.
If the evidence is stipulated, the length and complexity of an already long and complex
1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 147">*160 Accordingly, evidence of post-taxable-years' financial data is excluded under
To reflect the foregoing,
1. The taxable years in issue are 1977 and 1978.↩
2. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended and in effect during the years in issue.↩
3. Reference is hereby made to our previous memoranda sur order and to our opinion in
4. Pursuant to sec. 7453 and
5. Courts have broad discretion in making exclusionary rulings under
Furthermore, we note that
"These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration,
6. See also
"would have been likely to protract an already prolonged trial with an inquiry into collateral issues regarding the accuracy of the report and the methods used in its compilation."↩
7. This concession to trial time is not only "a concession to the shortness of life" (
8. Respondent notes that in
Further, in his memorandum, respondent quotes language from