Stephen V. Talmage - Page 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                
          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