Patricia R. Carpentier - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
                    d.  Petitioner received rents from the real estate                
               managed by Charles Dunn Company for 1989 through 1993                  
               in the respective amounts of $75,000.00, $75,000.00,                   
               $81,115.89, $75,891.62 and $77,910.94.                                 
                    e.  Petitioner received rents from the real estate                
               in amounts greater than determined in the notices of                   
               deficiency issued to the petitioner, in the respective                 
               amounts of $34,800.00, $34,800.00, $40,915.89,                         
               $35,691.62 and $37,710.94.                                             
                    f.  Because of concessions by respondent with                     
               regard to the capital gains income received by                         
               petitioner in the years in question, the increased                     
               income will not result in deficiencies greater than the                
               amounts determined by respondent in the notices of                     
               deficiency.                                                            
               Petitioner failed to file a reply to respondent's Amendment            
          to Answer.                                                                  
               On December 13, 1999, respondent filed a motion pursuant to            
          Rule 37(c) requesting that all undenied allegations set forth in            
          respondent's Amendment to Answer be deemed admitted.  Although              
          petitioner was notified of respondent's motion, petitioner failed           
          to file either a response to the motion or a reply to                       
          respondent's Amendment to Answer.  On January 10, 2000, the Court           
          granted respondent's Rule 37(c) motion.                                     
               On February 1, 2000, Mr. Peabody filed a motion to withdraw            
          from the case, citing petitioner's failure to communicate with              
          him.  The Court granted Mr. Peabody's motion on March 3, 2000.              
          Prior thereto, on February 24, 2000, Douglas D. Potratz filed an            
          entry of appearance on behalf of petitioner.  Mr. Potratz is                
          petitioner’s current counsel.                                               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011