- 9 -
issue were due to fraud, facts concerning petitioner's education
and employment; his failure to file timely returns; the omission
of substantial amounts of income on the returns that were
belatedly filed; and his failure to maintain, or to submit for
examination, complete and adequate books and records. Petitioner
belatedly filed a reply, denying the allegations but not setting
forth any specific facts contradicting them.
By notice served August 28, 1992, this case was set for
trial in New York on February 1, 1993. On November 10, 1992,
petitioner filed a Motion for Continuance and a Motion to Change
the Place of Trial to Hartford, Connecticut. In the Motion for
Continuance, petitioner represented that he was released from the
Federal Correctional Institute on August 22, 1991, and, since
then, had been attempting to obtain his records to prepare
properly for trial. He also represented that he had been
attempting to accumulate sufficient funds to retain counsel.
Petitioner's motions were granted.
By notice served January 6, 1993, the case was set for trial
on June 7, 1993, in Hartford, Connecticut. On May 13, 1993,
petitioner filed a Motion for Continuance, representing that he
had been indicted by the United States on several counts of mail
fraud, that his mail fraud trial was scheduled to commence on
May 10, 1993, and that he was unable to prepare for trial in this
case during the mail fraud trial. Respondent did not object, and
petitioner's motion was granted.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011