-7-
and stated that respondent need not respond to the request. We
warned petitioner that, in view of his already having wasted the
time of this Court and of respondent, he had put himself in
danger of a penalty being imposed on him under section 6673, and
referred to our previous warning about sanctions. We also stated
that petitioner's time-wasting and dilatory tactics put him
dangerously close to being in violation of the 15-day rule stated
in the standing pretrial order. We pointed out that, under that
rule, petitioner only had until October 21, 1995, the
unrestricted right to present to respondent the documentary
evidence to substantiate his asserted business expenses and
itemized deductions.
On October 25, 1995, petitioner filed a Motion For
Continuance asking for a delay of 60 days "to get proper
counsel", in view of the fact that the petition which the Court
viewed as frivolous had been filed by him in the first place
"based on faulty advice".
On October 27, 1995, we issued an order denying petitioner's
Motion for Continuance. We prefaced that order by reminding
petitioner that the notice setting the case for trial states in
block capitals that failure to appear at the calendar call or to
cooperate in the pretrial stipulation process may "RESULT IN
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND ENTRY OF DECISION AGAINST YOU". We
repeated our warnings about a section 6673 penalty and
petitioner's obligation to meet with respondent's counsel to
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