- 11 -
respondent's Motion for Sanctions and Summary Judgment Motion.
The Court further ordered that action on the aforementioned
motions would be held in abeyance until after that date.
On September 11, 1997, petitioner filed his Opposition to
Motion for Sanctions, in which he stated that "Petitioner shall
respond in full to Respondent's Interrogatories and Request for
Production in the next three (3) days" and sought to justify his
dilatoriness by referring to the illness of his wife. As noted
above, respondent's interrogatories and document request had been
served almost 7 months earlier--on February 18, 1997, and we
granted respondent's Motion to Compel Responses to Respondent's
Interrogatories and Motion to Compel Production of Documents over
5 months earlier--on April 9, 1997.
Petitioner also filed his Opposition to Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on September 11, 1997, on the ground that the
Partnership did not fall within the small partnership exception
to the unified audit provisions of sections 6221 through 6233
and, since respondent failed to issue a Notice of Final
Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) pursuant to section
6223, the 3-year period of limitations for assessment set forth
in section 6229(a) has expired.
By Order dated September 12, 1997, this case was struck from
the October 14, 1997, calendar and reassigned to Judge Arthur L.
Nims, III.
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