- 10 -
that] petitioner has rejected the final proposed settlement offer
from the respondent." Mr. Tigue's motion to withdraw was set for
hearing on June 17, 1996, at the Court's trial session at New
York, New York (trial session).
On June 17, 1996, this case was called from the calendar at
the trial session, and Mr. Tigue and Kevin M. Flynn, counsel for
petitioner Claire DeCaprio, appeared, but petitioner did not
appear. Counsel for respondent also appeared and filed respon-
dent's motion. On the same date, this case was recalled from the
calendar at the trial session for hearing (hearing) on both Mr.
Tigue's motion to withdraw and respondent's motion. Petitioner
appeared at that hearing, as did Mr. Tigue and counsel for
respondent.
With respect to Mr. Tigue's motion to withdraw and respon-
dent's motion, petitioner informed the Court at the hearing that
he did not intend to settle this case and that he did not intend
to proceed to trial. The Court granted Mr. Tigue's motion to
withdraw and took respondent's motion under advisement.
Petitioner has the burden of proof on all issues remaining
in this case except the additions to tax for fraud.4 Rule 142(a)
4 Although petitioner alleged in the petition that assessment of
the deficiencies in, and additions to, tax for 1983, 1984, and
1985 is barred by the statute of limitations, petitioner has the
burden, which he has failed to satisfy, of proving when the
returns for those years were filed and when the period of limita-
tions applicable to those years expired. See Miami Purchasing
Service Corp. v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 818, 823 (1981). More-
over, we find below that respondent has established fraud for
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011