Stephen V. Talmage - Page 5

          married filing separately, to a personal exemption, and to the              
          self-employment tax deduction.                                              
               On September 19, 1995, we issued an order directing                    
          petitioner to file a response showing why the facts and evidence            
          set forth in respondent's proposed stipulation of facts should              
          not be accepted as established for the purposes of the case.                
               On October 3, 1995, petitioner sent respondent Petitioner's            
          Request for Admissions, which demanded answers to 21 questions of           
          a general legal nature without any reference to the particular              
          circumstances of this case.                                                 
               Petitioner's Objection To Motion To Show Cause Why Proposed            
          Facts In Evidence Should Not Be Accepted As Established was filed           
          on October 12, 1995.  It contained a potted history of early                
          income tax cases, culminating with some references to                       
          petitioner's efforts to file a return under section 83 that would           
          obviate any taxable gain from his services, all of which                    
          purportedly led petitioner to conclude that his receipts were not           
          income and that this Court had no jurisdiction over the case.  It           
          also contained various complaints about the procedures that                 
          respondent had followed in this case.                                       
               On October 13, 1995, this Court filed respondent's Motion              
          For Protective Order, which asked this Court to enter an order              
          that respondent need not answer petitioner's request for                    
          admissions because it had been made shortly before trial, without           
          the informal consultation required by Branerton Corp. v.                    
          Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974).  Attached to respondent's                 

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