- 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