- 3 -
endedDecember25, 1983, through December 28, 1986?4 We hold that
she did not.
FINDINGS OF FACT5
4 In light of our holding on issue (1), we need not, and shall
not, address petitioners' contention that B&L Hong Kong's income
from the sale of sunglasses it assembled is excludible from
petitioners' gross income for each of those years under sec.
954(b)(4).
5 At the conclusion of the trial herein, the Court ordered the
parties to file seriatim briefs and limited the parties' respec-
tive briefs to a total of 150 pages, including the proposed
findings of fact. Petitioners' opening and reply briefs totaled
exactly 150 pages. It appears that they were able to so limit
their briefs only by violating Rule 151(e)(3). That Rule
requires the opening briefs of the parties to contain:
Proposed findings of fact * * * based on the evidence, in
the form of numbered statements, each of which shall be
complete and shall consist of a concise statement of essen-
tial fact and not a recital of testimony nor a discussion
or argument relating to the evidence or the law. * * *
Petitioners' opening brief did not contain any "Proposed findings
of fact * * * in the form of numbered statements" with respect to
any facts to which the parties stipulated in the revised first
stipulation of facts (first stipulation) and to which neither
party objected on evidentiary grounds. Respondent objected in
her brief to petitioners' failure to propose such stipulated
facts and their resultant violation of Rule 151(e)(3). However,
respondent did not request the Court to impose sanctions on
petitioners.
During the pretrial and trial phases of these cases, petition-
ers' lead counsel made it known to the Court on a number of
occasions that he is no stranger to this Court, since he has
appeared before us as attorney of record in a number of different
cases. We therefore presume that he is, and in any event he and
all counsel who appear before us should be, thoroughly familiar
with this Court's Rules, including Rule 151(e)(3). Since respon-
dent did not seek any sanctions from the Court for petitioners'
failure to comply with Rule 151(e)(3), which we view as nothing
more than their attempt to circumvent the page limitation we
(continued...)
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