James Luther Cochrane - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          income' or 'liability' under a revenue law for any calendar                 
          year."                                                                      
               (9) In request 21, respondent asserted that petitioner                 
          informed the IRS special agents that he earned no income in 1986            
          and was not required to file a return for that year.  In                    
          response, petitioner explained that he "did not state that he had           
          'earned no income', although this may be factual; but petitioner            
          had no 'earned income' or items amounting to income to the best             
          of his knowledge and belief."                                               
               (10) In requests 22 and 23, respondent asserted that                   
          petitioner advised his clients to claim the foreign earned income           
          exclusion on their returns and that none of petitioner's clients            
          actually resided or worked outside the United States during 1984,           
          1985, or 1986.  In response, petitioner stated that respondent              
          failed to define the terms "client", "resided", and "United                 
          States".                                                                    
               On January 19, 1996, the parties were notified that this               
          case was scheduled for trial on June 17, 1996, in San Diego,                
          California.  When the case was called on June 17, 1996,                     
          petitioner made an oral motion for continuance for the purpose of           
          obtaining discovery, which was denied.  Respondent then filed a             
          motion to impose sanctions upon petitioner, pursuant to Rule                
          104(c), for failure to comply with our May 9, 1996, order that              
          petitioner respond to the requests for admission.  Petitioner               
          objected and argued against respondent's motion for sanctions.              




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