Leslie R. Barth - Page 15

                                                - 15 -                                                  
            The Court directed that, in the absence of an order granting any                            
            subsequent motions by petitioner, simultaneous opening briefs                               
            were due from the parties July 5, 1995, and answering briefs were                           
            due August 21, 1995.                                                                        
                  On May 8, 1995, petitioner filed a Motion for                                         
            Reconsideration of Default Judgment and New Trial and Offers of                             
            Proof.  Petitioner offered no excuse for his prior failures to                              
            comply with Court Orders or to proceed to trial, had not as of                              
            that time employed counsel, and merely represented that he was                              
            "prepared to contact respondent in the ensuing week to discuss a                            
            possible third stipulation of facts."  Petitioner's Offers of                               
            Proof consisted of a statement of his intention to call Timbie,                             
            who would give his opinion that the returns were prepared "in                               
            accordance with the provisions of the applicable Internal Revenue                           
            Code and applicable regulations" and Onofrio, who would testify                             
            that he had access to petitioner's records and would give the                               
            same opinion.  Further, according to the offer of proof, the                                
            witnesses would testify that petitioner did not intend to                                   
            misstate or misrepresent his income.                                                        
                  Because the proffered testimony of Timbie and Onofrio was                             
            primarily inadmissible opinion, was inconsistent with the                                   
            testimony previously given by Timbie and Lipton, and was not                                
            sufficient to comply with the Court's direction, petitioner's                               
            motion for reconsideration was denied May 22, 1995.  Petitioner                             
            failed to file the briefs ordered by the Court.                                             

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011