Tax Court

Robert Clarkson only suggests options and explains possible consequences. You must make your own decisions. The PN does not control or manage any case. As a pro se litigant, you must do that yourself.

Long time patriot, Henry, on the left. Evil lawyer for the IRS on the right. Tax Court Administrative Law Judge in background.

Reports from inside Tax court

Best Win EVER!

Henry Fights the Tax Thieves

Patriots put PN Principles to Work in Tax Court

December 17, 2004

Clerk of Court
United States Tax Court
400 Second Street NW
Washington D.C. 20217

Re: Michael Mountain vs. CIR, Docket No. _________

Dear Clerk of Court:

The IRS in Ogden UT sent me a Notice of Deficiency dated September 27, 2004.

I want to petition the tax court for the tax years 1995-2005. Please send me the necessary forms and instructions. My SSN # is 123-45-7890

I do not owe the deficiency. The IRS calculations are grossly incorrect.

Yours,

Michael Mountain
1776 Freedom Way
Liberty, SC 29610

United States Tax Court

 Mr. Liberty                        )
               Petitioner           )
                                    )
                    vs.             )         Docket No. 12345-67
                                    )
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue,  )
               Respondent.          )
                                    )

Request for Modification of Petition
Request for a Full Trial

1. Petitioner Mr. Liberty Grage hereby requests that the Tax Court allows him to modify his original petition filed on March, 31 2004 to seek a full trial instead of a small case trialPetitioner made a good faith effort to comply with the Court’s instruction to attempt to negotiate a settlement of this matter. Petitioner contacted Charles Brashear, IRS Appeals Officer in the Glendale California office on or about 9/25/04. Mr. Brashear stated that he would not even talk to the Petitioner unless he signed a 1040 Form in advance. This is an arbitrary and unreasonable position that deprives the Petitioner of both his due process and discovery rights. There is no basis in law for this unreasonable demand. Petitioner is open to considering signing a 1040 Form if he can insist that the form is accurately filled out and not merely based upon limited and inaccurate information contained in the IRS Substitute for Return. It is, in fact the IRS Substitute for Return itself and the process by which it was created, that are at legal issue here. Therefore the Petitioner is unwilling to be bludgeoned into signing a 1040 Form that covertly abrogated the possibility of any of the legal and procedural questions pertaining to that legal process from being heard and ruled upon by an impartial court of competent jurisdiction.Petitioner received a letter from the IRS Counsel. The letter contained 1099 information only. It had no other documents showing how said 1099 information was utilized to complete the Substitute for Return and compute an alleged tax owed.
2. Petitioner has previously requested internal documents that are necessary to generate a Substitute for Return. His requests for these documents have been ignored, as have virtually all of Petitioner’s multiple attempts to communicate responsibly and in good faith to resolve this matter with the IRS prior to the filing of the petition now before the Tax Court.

Petitioner therefore prays that the Tax Court allow him to modify his original petition, to have a full trial instead of a small case trial.

Thank You.

Docket No. 5910-04

Certificate of Service

I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing council.

        Jordan S. Musen, Attorney for Respondent.
        Associate Area Counsel
        Tax Court Bar No. MJ1957
        950 Hampshire Road.
        East Pavilion
        Thousand Oaks, Ca. 91361-2819
        805-371-6702 * 735

____________________                _________________________

Date: September 28, 2004.                   Mr. Liberty, Petitioner
                                                                       5307 Katherine St.
                                                                       Simi Valley, Ca. 93063
                                                                       805-583-3909

IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 - Section 3001 - Burden of Proof

Section 3001

A. Provision(s) covered: Section 3001 (new I.R.C. 7491). Burden of Proof.

In general, the burden of proof with respect to a factual issue in any court proceeding is shifted from the taxpayer to the Internal Revenue Service, provided the taxpayer first introduces credible evidence with respect to the factual issue and satisfies four conditions:

• The taxpayer has complied with any current requirements to substantiate any item;
• The taxpayer has maintained all records in accordance with then current requirements;
• The taxpayer has cooperated with reasonable requests by the IRS for witnesses, information, documents, meetings and interviews; and
• If the taxpayer is not an individual, it does not have a net worth in excess of $7 million.

B. Background: By statute or rule, the general burden of proof in court with respect to establishing the taxpayer's liability has always been placed upon the taxpayer. There were exceptions to this rule made by statute, court rule, and federal common law, but those exceptions were few. Under prior law, there was no specific burden of proof rules with respect to proof of income by statistic averages or with respect to penalties (except the fraud and other minor penalties); therefore, the taxpayer bore the burden of proof with respect to those issues also.

Congress believed that the placement of the general burden of proof on the taxpayers created the perception of guilt until proven innocent and that a better balance would place the burden of proof on the government to show an increase in liability if the taxpayer complied with the procedural and record keeping requirements of the tax laws. That is, if the taxpayer was generally law-abiding, it should be the government's responsibility to show that the taxpayer's determination of liability was not correct. Congress was also concerned that individual and small business taxpayers, who are generally tax compliant, are at a disadvantage when forced to litigate with the Service and the general burden of proof contributed to that unfairness or appearance of unfairness.

Congress also believed that it is inappropriate in all cases for the taxpayer to be required to disprove unreported income when the Service determined that income solely on statistical information on unrelated taxpayers. Finally, Congress was concerned that in a court proceeding, taxpayers often ignored the issue of penalties, and that they were applied by the courts and the IRS by default. Therefore, it determined that the IRS should not be able to rest on the presumption of correctness if it does not provide any evidence whatsoever relating to penalties.

C. Change(s): Three changes were made in the burden of proof in tax litigation.

1. A new provision places the general burden of proof on the Service with respect to factual issues in certain situations. To qualify, the taxpayer must show that they have complied with all the substantiation requirements; has maintained all the records required by the Code; has cooperated with all the Service's reasonable requests for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and interviews; and meets certain net worth requirements.
   
   
2. A second provision places the burden of proof on the Service if it asserts an item of income based solely on statistical information relating to unrelated taxpayers. In this event, there is no requirement that the taxpayer maintain records or cooperate with the Service.
   
   
3. A third provision provides that when the Service asserts penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts, the Service must initially produce evidence with respect to the penalty before the general burden of proof rules apply.

D. Impact

1. When taxpayers meet the prerequisites for a shift in the burden of proof, the Service will have the burden to show the correctness of the Service's position, rather than rely upon the taxpayer to disprove the Service's determination. However, this shift should not pose an unreasonable obstruction to the Service in determining the correct tax liability. Good auditing and good litigation practice, similar to most determinations in the past, will ordinarily produce sufficient evidence to sustain the burden of proof. That is, the Service and Chief Counsel have not, in the past, generally relied upon the taxpayer's failure of proof to sustain the asserted liability, but rather have affirmatively shown the proper liability. Adherence to these practices will satisfy the new standard, but it is now extremely important that a thorough investigation and documentation of liability be done prior to the initiation of litigation.
2. Further, the standard will now place greater emphasis and scrutiny as to the audit process. Under prior law, determinations of the court were strictly de novo meaning that what happened during the audit was immaterial -- the taxpayer needed to prove the proper liability in court. Now, the exceptions to the burden of proof rule concentrate on communications between the Service and the taxpayer during audit; that is, what requests for information were made by the Service and did the taxpayer cooperate. Thus it is essential that audit work papers document the taxpayers cooperation and substantiation, and the Service's requests for information.
3. There is some concern that, despite the explicit requirements that the taxpayer substantiate items and cooperate with the Service, taxpayers may interpret the burden of proof standard as meaning that they no longer need to do these things. Service personnel thus should make the record maintenance and production requirements clear to taxpayers at all times.

E. Necessary Actions

1. Actions/Procedures: Revisions to the IRM and CCDM will need to be made to implement and explain this provision. Additional guidance and training as to the impact of these provisions will be necessary.
   
   
2. The public and Service personnel must understand that these new standards do not, in any way, detract from or minimize the responsibilities of taxpayers to properly determine, and document, their tax liabilities. Local outreach, and individualized discussions, will be necessary to continually underscore this point.

General Burden of Proof:

Statistical Information:

Penalties:

F. Other Special Comments: Additional guidelines and instructions will be provided. In the interim, Service personnel should use the guidelines above.

The Burden to Prove
Protect yourself from legal corruption!

Every person who comes to court claiming or demanding a right is required to prove he or she is entitled to relief. This requirement to prove is called "the burden".

Suppose your neighbor sues you for running over her dog with a lawn mower. She files her complaint and demands judgment. To get from complaint to the court's judgment, however, she must meet her burden. She must prove you did what she says.

You are not required to prove you didn't. The burden is on her. It's her case to prove.

The burden of proof in court is always on the person asserting a claim, making a motion, demanding a right. Before the court can lawfully grant relief of any kind, the party seeking relief must carry his burden of proving he is entitled to relief.

You may have heard the expression, "It's your word against his." That is not true in court. In fact, one side always has the burden. The burden may shift back and forth during a complicated lawsuit, depending on who is claiming what. However the burden is always on the side seeking relief, the party making a claim, the litigant moving the court, the claimant alleging a fact, etc. This is part of our American system of justice ... and it is a good part.

For example, suppose you are sued by an angry woman who says you kicked her dog. You say you didn't do it. Is it your word against hers? Not at all. It is up to her to carry the burden of proof to show that you did, indeed, kick her dog. You are never required to prove you didn't do it. The other side is required to prove you did. After all, they're the ones who started the fight!

Some lawyers attempt to put the other side "on the defensive", i.e., they try to get the other side to prove something did not happen ... like the kicked dog incident. Inexperienced defendants may go to great lengths to show they were out of town that day or that they were confined to a wheelchair or even that they are devoted dog lovers. This is what the plaintiff wants. If the defendant ignorantly tries to prove the dog-kicking did not take place, the plaintiff will be spared the effort of trying to prove that it did take place. A smarter defendant would move the court to take judicial notice that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, then sit back and wait to see what the plaintiff can show in the way of admissible evidence in support of her claim. Put the ball in the court where it belongs.

Every person asserting a claim, making a motion, seeking relief, or otherwise coming to court with an allegation upon which he expects the court to act favorably to his cause must first meet his burden to prove what he says is true. In civil court cases the burden is a preponderance of the admissible evidence, i.e., by"the greater weight" of admissible evidence. In criminal cases (and a few other matters like incompetency proceedings) the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence, i.e., "beyond a reasonable doubt".

This business of meeting the burden cannot be overstressed. Many cases are won on no more clever tactic than sitting back and requiring the complaining party to prove his claim. If the party seeking relief cannot prove his claim, i.e., if he cannot meet the burden of proof, he loses ... (upon the defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's faulty case) ... and the defending party can go home without anything further.

Put the burden where it belongs.

Lucky Patriot
6870 Georgia Hwy
Landfill, Georgia 30003

JAMES R. RICH
Senior Attorney
Tax Court Bar No. RJ0164
320 Federal Place
Greensboro, NC 27401

December 15, 2004

RE: Docket No. 107

Dear Mr. Rich;

Since the Court requires the parties to agree in writing to facts and documents which should not be in dispute, Lucky Patriot in a “good faith” attempt has herein enclosed three (3) signed PETITIONER’S STIPULATION OF FACTS, that are the facts that Lucky Patriot has personal knowledge and understanding of in this instant matter. Lucky Patriot believes that any deviation from these stated facts would be a manipulation/misrepresentation of the facts.

Should you agree with this STIPULATION OF FACTS please sign, date and return one original to Lucky Patriot and forward one original and one copy to the U.S. TAX COURT and retain one original for your records.

Yours,

Lucky Patriot
Petitioner

Enclosures: (3) Original STIPULATION OF FACTS with this cover letter.

United States Tax Court

 Lucky Patriot                       )
               Petitioner           )
                                    )
                    vs.             )         Docket No.
                                    )
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue,  )Stipulation of Facts by Petitioner
               Respondent.          )

It is hereby stipulated that, for the purpose of this case, the following statements may be accepted as facts and all exhibits referred to herein and attached hereto may be accepted as authentic and are incorporated in this stipulation and made a part hereof; provided, however, that either party has the right to object to the admission of any such facts and exhibits in evidence on the grounds of relevancy and materiality, but not on other grounds unless expressly reserved herein, and provided, further, that either party may introduce other and further evidence not inconsistent with the facts herein stipulated.

1. Petitioner had cost/expenditures of $80,479.11 for Year 2001.

2. Petitioner had two dependents for the year 2001.

3. Petitioner received proceeds from the sale of stock in 2001. Petitioner had a cost basis of $4,500.00 in said stock proceeds for 2001.

4. Petitioner sold real estate in the year 2001. Petitioner had a cost basis in said real estate of $28,148.00 and costs/expenditures of $4740.00 expenses involved in maintaining/selling the real estate for the year 2001.

5. Petitioner built a shop/barn in year 2001 at a cost of $27,592.70.

Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.

        _______________________                 _____________________
        Lucky Patriot, Petitioner                 Evil IRS Lawyer
        6870 Georgia Hwy                          320 Federal Place
        Landfill, GA 30003                       Greensboro, NC 27401
    Date:_______________________               Date:___________________
      

United States Tax Court

 John Ray Adams                     )
               Petitioner           )
                                    )
                    vs.             )         Docket No. 6582
                                    )
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue,  )
               Respondent.          )
                                    )

Motion for Extension of Time

Pursuant to Tax Court Rule # 25(c) Petitioner Adams above hereby moves this court for an extension of time based upon the following grounds:

1). District Counsel has not notified me of pre-trial order or pre-trial conference or an opportunity to reach settlement in this case. Furthermore, District Counsel has not initiated pre-trial discovery, which was to completed 45 days before trial, pursuant to Tax Court Rule # 70(a)(2). District Counsel has not provided timely stipulations to Petitioner Adams, stipulations were received by Petitioner Adams on Saturday January 8, 2005. Stipulations were not received in time for an adequate response

2). This case is ready for settlement. District Counsel has not bothered to respond to my frequent requests for an out of court settlement.

3). Petitioner Adams needs more time to secure records, prepare for trial and fill out stipulations.

4). Petitioner Adams is a pro se litigant, unschooled in law and unfamiliar with procedures and needs more time to prepare for trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that pro se litigants are not held to the same procedural standards as highly trained attorneys.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that on this date, I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.

 _____________________________            January 12, 2005
             John Ray Adams

                                                            John Ray Adams, Jr.
                                                            705 Patriot Run Court
                                                            Gatlinburg, TN 33333
Caroline R. Krivacka
Senior Attorney
(Small Business/Self-Employed)
Tax Court Bar No. KC0314
810 Broadway, Suite 400
Nashville, TN 37203
                                         January 24, 2005
RE: Docket No. 6582
Dear Ms. Caroline R. Krivacka;

Since the Court requires the parties to agree in writing to facts and documents which should not be in dispute, Petitioner John Ray Adams, Jr. in a “good faith” attempt has herein enclosed three (3) signed PETITIONER’S STIPULATION OF FACTS, that are the facts that John Ray Adams, Jr. has personal knowledge and understanding of in this instant matter. John Ray Adams, Jr. believes that any deviation from these stated facts would be a manipulation/misrepresentation of the facts.

Should you agree with this STIPULATION OF FACTS please sign, date and return one original to John Ray Adams, Jr. and forward one original and one copy to the U.S. TAX COURT and retain one original for your records.

Yours,

John Ray Adams, Jr.
Petitioner

Enclosures: (3) Original STIPULATION OF FACTS with this cover letter.

United States Tax Court

 John Ray Adams                      )
               Petitioner           )
                                    )
                    vs.             )         Docket No. 6582
                                    )
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue,  )
               Respondent.          )
                                    )

Stipulation of facts

It is hereby stipulated that, for the purpose of this case, the following statements may be accepted as facts and all exhibits referenced to herein and attached hereto may be accepted as authentic and are incorporated in this stipulation and made a part hereof; provided, however, that either party has the right to object to the admission of any such facts and exhibits in evidence on the grounds of relevancy and materiality, but not on other grounds unless expressly reserved herein, and provided that either party may introduce other and further evidence not inconsistent with the facts herein stipulated.

1. Petitioner was involved in the same activities for Year 2001 as in prior years1999 and 2000.
2. Petitioner had deductions, expenses, losses and other allowances for the year 2001, same as prior 2 years, 1999 and 2000, for which petitioner received refunds for those years and expect a refund for 2001.
3. Someone other than Petitioner filed a substitute for return without consideration of previous tax returns.
4. Petitioner’s original tax returns for 1999 and 2000 have been destroyed by incident and are needed for 2001 to complete all information required for the court’s consideration and for proper amount of refund owed to me.
5. Petitioner has requested copies of previous returns as exculpatory evidence that no taxes are owed, no deficiency exists and petitioner expected a refund prior to Notice of Deficiency, 1-14-2004.
6. Petitioner was involved with IRS Notice of Lien/Levy, until July 1, 2004 Final Determination in his favor and filing a return during that time period would have resulted in my refund being improperly seized.

DONALD L. KORB, Chief Counsel, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

__________________________              ___________________________
John Ray Adams, Jr.                     Caroline R. Krivacka
Petitioner                              Senior Attorney
705 Patriot Run Court                   Tax Court Bar No. KC0314
Gatlinburg, TN 33333                    810 Broadway, Suite 400
                                        Nashville, TN 37203
Date:_________________________          Date:___________________________
Certificate of Service:  I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a
copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.DONALD L. KORB
Chief Counsel
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
__________________________                  __________________________
John Ray Adams , Jr.                        Caroline R. Krivacka
Petitioner                                  Senior Attorney
705 Patriot Run Court                       Tax Court Bar No. KC0314
Gatlinburg, TN 33333                        810 Broadway, Suite 400
                                            Nashville, TN 37203
Date:______________________                 Date:______________________

United States Tax Court

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
    Washington, DC

Henry Patriot                     )      
   Petitioner                     ) Docket  NO. 1104-06, 20806-09   
                                  )
  vs.                             )   
NOTICE OF APPEAL
                                  )
Commissioner of Internal Revenue  )
     Respondent                         

Notice is hereby given that Petitioner above-named hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, from the order of The Honorable Thomas B. Wells, Judge, U.S. Tax Court dated, July 24, 2006, which decided deficiencies in Petitioner’s federal income tax and awarded penalties under section 6673(a) against Petitioner.

Certificate of Service: I hereby certify that on this date I sent properly to opposing party a copy of this pleading.

      ______________________________                         Date: ________________________
      Henry Patriot, Petitioner, Pro Se
      Greenville, SC 29615

US TAX COURT
Washington, DC

Julie Freeman ) Petitioners, ) DOCKET # 1976-06, ) V. ) 5777-05 ) 6776-05
                    ) Commissioner Internal Revenue ) Motion for Continuance Respondent. ) 

Pursuant to Tax Court Rule # 133, Petitioner above hereby moves this court for a continuance of trial now scheduled for September 11, 2006 based upon the following grounds:

1) Petitioner mailed her stipulations to District Counsel on August 23, 2006. District Counsel has not responded to them. On August 23, 2006 Petitioner received the Stipulations of the Respondent and has not had time to prepare a response. When the stipulations of both parties are filed, most likely they will settle the case. The only disputes include the figures, the net income of Petitioner, dependents and a few other minor matters.

2) Respondent filed their stipulations late and in violation of the rules for filing discovery. Pre-trial discovery should be completed 45 days before trial, pursuant to Tax Court Rule # 70(a)(2).

The Respondents have been unfair, demanding and unreasonable when Petitioner requests settlement.

3) This case is ready for settlement. District Counsel has not bothered to respond to Petitioner’s frequent requests for an out of court settlement.

4) Petitioner needs more time to secure records, prepare for trial and fill out stipulations.

5) Petitioner is a pro se litigant, unschooled in law and unfamiliar with procedures and needs more time to prepare for trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that pro se litigants are not held to the same procedural standards as highly trained attorneys. Haines vs. Kerner 404US 519(1972).

6) Opposing Counsel is Terry Serena, Senior Counsel, Cincinnati, Ohio. Petitioner has not contacted him about this matter because he is hostile to pro se litigants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I do hereby certify that on this date, I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.

      ______________________________                        Date:___________________
Dr. Julie Freeman, Petitioner Pro se
        Bridgeport, WV

IRC § 6673: Sanctions and costs awarded by courts

(1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay, etc.--Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that--
(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,
(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or
(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies, the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000.

(2) Counsel's liability for excessive costs.--Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that any attorney or other person admitted to practice before the Tax Court has multiplied the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously, the Tax Court may require--
(A) that such attorney or other person pay personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct, or
(B) if such attorney is appearing on behalf of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that the United States pay such excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees in the same manner as such an award by a district court.

(1) Claims under section 7433.--Whenever it appears to the court that the taxpayer's position in the proceedings before the court instituted or maintained by such taxpayer under section 7433 is frivolous or groundless, the court may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $10,000.

(2) Collection of sanctions and costs.--In any civil proceeding before any court (other than the Tax Court) which is brought by or against the United States in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax, interest, or penalty under this title, any monetary sanctions, penalties, or costs awarded by the court to the United States may be assessed by the Secretary and, upon notice and demand, may be collected in the same manner as a tax.

(3) Sanctions and costs awarded by a court of appeals.--In connection with any appeal from a proceeding in the Tax Court or a civil proceeding described in paragraph (2), an order of a United States Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court awarding monetary sanctions, penalties or court costs to the United States may be registered in a district court upon filing a certified copy of such order and shall be enforceable as other district court judgments. Any such sanctions, penalties, or costs may be assessed by the Secretary and, upon notice and demand, may be collected in the same manner as a tax.

Explanation of McKee Case

From Lindsey Springer:

On December 4, 2006, the 9th Circuit reversed the United States Tax Court on whether litigation costs involving the IRS making a claim that was 3 times what they were actually owed was the liability of the McKee family to suffer. An added penalty so to speak.

It is a short read but the sum of it is the Tax Court held the IRS was not liable for their calculation blunders on the basis that the Tax Court, in its discretion, claimed the regulations written by the IRS and codes were so complex that the IRS could not be held liable for its failure to understand them. The 9th Circuit reversed. The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue asked the 9th Circuit not to make the decision public.

And now you have it. No matter what they do with it, you have a copy of it and the Commissioner is bound by the decision. Imagine, the taxpayer claiming mistake because the statutes and regulations were so complex and the IRS rejecting that and seeking penalties for failure to measure up.

This decision and the Tax Court abuse of discretion show that the Tax Court is not a Court at all but a place where the complexity can be filtered to the benefit of the IRS. I do not mind the Government having the benefit when the law supports their claim but when the law is basically written by them and they claim it is so complicated they cannot be held liable for their mistakes, and they deal with it every day for their job, what does that say about the rest of America ?

It is so complicated. The IRS cannot comply with their own regulations nor even understand what they say. Add this to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 duties upon them and it is like having this in HD.

In short conclusion I would say that Judges will eventually show up at the dance but they probably will not be invited nor will they enter as everyone else. It is always good to have someone monitoring the cameras from the side and rear entrances just so we know when they are their and when they have left the building.

Rules of Evidence in Tax Court

The Federal Rules of Civil Evidence are to be used in Tax Court

ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication of Identification (a) General provision - The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. and (b) (1) Testimony of witness with knowledge, - Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.