-3-
or to comply with the Privacy Act). Petitioner also claimed that
he was entitled to deductions for business expenses and itemized
deductions sufficient to eliminate or greatly reduce any tax
liability, but did not allege any facts to support these claims.
Respondent's, answer, filed February 6, 1995, denied all of
petitioner's assignments of error and supporting allegations.
On June 1, 1995, we set the case for trial on November 6,
1995, at a regular trial session of this Court to be held at
Columbia, South Carolina, and sent petitioner a copy of our
standing pretrial order, containing the usual instructions to the
parties: To begin discussions as soon as practicable, to
negotiate in good faith, to settle minor issues, to stipulate
facts to the maximum extent possible, to prepare and file trial
memoranda, to identify witnesses in advance, and to prepare for
trial, and warning the parties that any unexcused failure to
comply with the order adversely affecting the timing or conduct
of the trial could cause this Court to impose sanctions,
including dismissal of the case.
On August 18, 1995, petitioner filed a "Motion for Dismissal
of Case", alleging that he had filed the petition based on a
misunderstanding of his legal status, and purporting to cancel
his signatures on the petition and attachments to the petition.
On September 6, 1995, we issued an order denying
petitioner's Motion for Dismissal of Case. We explained that
Bradley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-364, and Estate of Ming
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