Galen J. Smith - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          petitioner or his former spouse is responsible for the resulting            
          income tax liability.  Respondent has not taken a position as to            
          whether the subject marital property settlements satisfy the                
          requirements of section 414(p).  Instead, respondent merely seeks           
          additional time to allow Ms. Schroeder to file a petition in                
          response to the notice of deficiency issued to her.  Respondent's           
          ultimate goal is to join Ms. Schroeder as a party to these                  
          proceedings.  Respondent has represented to us that Ms. Schroeder           
          is expected to file a petition in response to the notice of                 
          deficiency issued to her, and that a motion to consolidate will             
          be filed shortly thereafter.                                                
               Rule 134 permits us to grant a continuance where a motion              
          for same is timely, sets forth good and sufficient cause, and               
          complies with all applicable rules.  Generally we disfavor                  
          postponing trials once a case has been set on calendar; however,            
          we have broad discretion in handling motions for continuance.               
          Manzoli v. Commissioner, 904 F.2d 101, 106 (1st Cir. 1990), affg.           
          T.C. Memo. 1988-299; Estate of Van Loben Sels v. Commissioner,              
          82 T.C. 64 (1984).                                                          
               Respondent argues, and we agree, that a continuance is                 
          necessary in this case, to conserve the Court's resources and               
          avoid any undue hindrance in the resolution of the issues                   
          presented.  Respondent urges us to grant a continuance in this              
          case so as to avoid multiple trials concerning the same                     
          transaction and the possible risk of inconsistent determinations            
          as to the validity of the subject QDROs at issue herein.                    



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011