- 7 -
Petitioner first informed respondent on March 6, 1996, that
it intended to argue that Birnie never owned the Hondo stock in
issue. On March 11, 1996, respondent filed a trial memorandum
with this Court. In the trial memorandum, respondent states that
petitioner has raised a new issue regarding the
decedent's ownership of the property which is the
subject of the gift tax, of which respondent received
notice on March 6, 1996. The new issue has not been
fully articulated by the petitioner and the respondent
has not had the opportunity to evaluate the argument or
respond to it.
On March 21, 1996, 4 days before the calendar call which included
the instant case, respondent faxed, inter alia, Exhibits AD and
AG to petitioner's counsel and indicated that they should be
included in a supplemental stipulation of facts. These documents
relate to petitioner's new argument. Petitioner claims that
respondent purposely delayed presenting these documents and that
they should be excluded from evidence pursuant to the pretrial
order. We disagree.
The purpose of the pretrial order is to avoid surprise,
promote stipulation of uncontroverted facts and exhibits, and
shorten trial time. Respondent responded to petitioner's new
argument within a reasonable time. Petitioner was presented with
these documents prior to the start of the trial and had
sufficient time to prepare a response. Additionally, these
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