Maudella L. Caskey - Page 2

                                                 - 2 -                                                   
            the income tax deficiency and penalty determined in the notice of                            
            deficiency because this case contains no genuine issue as to any                             
            material fact and that judgment should be rendered as a matter of                            
            law.                                                                                         
            Background                                                                                   
                  Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal                             
            income tax for taxable year 1991 in the amount of $29,027.                                   
            Respondent further determined that petitioner is liable for the                              
            accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount of                              
            $5,805.  A notice of deficiency was issued on March 17, 1995.                                
                  On September 27, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for                                   
            continuance (petitioner's motion), requesting that this case be                              
            continued due to a surgical operation performed on her knee.                                 
            According to her motion, petitioner's physical condition                                     
            following said surgical operation prevented her from traveling to                            
            Tampa, Florida, for the trial in this case.  On September 30,                                
            1996, before the Court had ruled on petitioner's motion, this                                
            case was called for trial at Tampa, Florida.  Neither petitioner                             
            nor anyone acting on her behalf made an appearance.  Counsel for                             
            respondent, however, appeared and was heard.  Despite                                        
            petitioner's absence at the calender call, the Court considered                              
            and granted her motion for continuance.                                                      
                  On November 13, 1996, respondent filed her above-referenced                            
            motion for summary judgment (respondent's motion).  On November                              
            15, 1996, the Court ordered (the Court's order) petitioner to                                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011