Opinion
1013-23
03-29-2024
VITO MANENTE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Elizabeth A. Copeland Judge.
This case is scheduled for trial at the Trial Session of the Court set to commence on April 8, 2024, in New York, New York.
On March 13, 2024, Petitioner, Vito Manente, filed a Motion to Take Judicial Notice, asking the Court to take judicial notice of the following:
1. "First Amendment to Petition" filed with the Court on February 10, 2023.
2. "Pretrial Memorandum" filed with the Court on December 13, 2023.
3. "Exhibits" filed with the Court on March 13, 2024.
4. Mr. Manente's paraphrase of certain judicial holdings regarding pro se litigants in the following opinions: Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)); Platsky v. CIA, 953 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1991); Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000); and Trinsey v. Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647 (E.D. Pa. 1964).
Trials before the Tax Court are conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. See I.R.C. § 7453. Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides as follows:
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C), in effect at all relevant times.
The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:
(1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or
(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Any alleged facts or legal conclusions contained in Mr. Manente's First Amendment to Petition, Pretrial Memorandum, or Exhibits do not satisfy either test of Fed.R.Evid. 201(b) and so cannot be judicially noticed. However, we may take judicial notice of the fact that Mr. Manente filed each of these documents in this case on the indicated dates, since this fact can be accurately and readily determined from the Tax Court docket system.
We remind Mr. Manente that he need not move the Court to judicially notice facts of which it is already aware.
Mr. Manente's paraphrases of the judicial holdings in the four above-cited opinions likewise do not satisfy either test of Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). However, we may take judicial notice of the fact that the four courts in question issued opinions with language that can be found in various public databases under the citations indicated above. See Estate of Reis v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1016, 1027 (1986) ("Also generally subject to judicial notice under [Fed. R. Evid.] 201 is the fact that a decision or judgment was entered in a case, that an opinion was filed, as well as the language of a particular opinion.").
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Take Judicial Notice, filed March 13, 2024, is granted insofar as it asks the Court to take judicial notice of facts that satisfy one or both tests of Fed.R.Evid. 201(b), as explained above, and denied insofar as it asks the Court to take judicial notice of facts that fail both tests of Fed.R.Evid. 201(b), as explained above.