Opinion ID: 1797133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Certificates of Assessments

Text: The Court of Appeals held that the Certificates of Assessments and Payments were not properly validated or certified under Rule 44.01, Tenn.R.Civ.P., because (1) the signature of the Director of the Internal Revenue Service was affixed thereto by a deputy and (2) there is no provision in Rule 44.01 for certifying a true extract. We dispose of the latter contention first. Rule 44.01 provides for the proof of an official record by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy. We do not think it even arguable that the right to evidence an official record by the presentation of a certified copy does not carry with it the right to certify pertinent parts of the record. If other parts are germane, our rules contain ample procedures to require their production and inspection. Under Rule 44.01, Tenn.R.Civ.P., official records, if in the custody of any public official within this state, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy. Clearly, under this rule the Certificates of Assessments and Payments could have been certified by Claude A. Kyle, the Director of the Internal Revenue Service Center for the Southeast Region, at Memphis, or by his deputy, Dale Crimpley, Branch Chief of the Certification Branch, who had been designated to sign Kyle's name. The difficulty in this case stems from the fact that the Certificates bear the purported signature of Kyle, affixed by Crimpley, without any indication that it was so signed. The failure of Crimpley to sign his own name as Branch Chief, and therefore, as Kyle's deputy, is unexplained in the record. While we view this as incredibly sloppy procedure, under the facts of this case, we hold that these records were admissible. Not only were the documents certified over an official signature and under an official seal, but also the government presented these records by a senior technician employed at the Memphis Service Center, who testified that they were made under her supervision and personally verified by her. Further, the accuracy of these figures is not challenged. In the last analysis we deal with a formality that should not be permitted to frustrate the orderly reception in evidence of an official record.