Stephen V. Talmage - Page 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