- 5 -
D.C., at the Court's weekly motions session. To suit the
convenience of the parties and the Court, the Court may on its
own motion, or pursuant to the written request of any party to
the motion, direct that the hearing be held at a location other
than Washington, D.C. Rule 50(b)(2).
In this case petitioner has made no showing that an
evidentiary hearing is necessary with respect to respondent's
motion. See generally Maxfield v. Commissioner, 153 F.2d 325,
327-328 (9th Cir. 1946) (construing a Rule of this Court no
longer in effect); Bolton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-181.
Given the nature of respondent's motion, and considering the
representations, allegations and prayer for relief made in the
petition, it is clear to us that any opposition petitioner might
have to respondent's motion would not depend upon the
introduction of evidence, but rather would consist of argument(s)
that could have been submitted in a written statement. We
understand that the expenses involved in traveling from San
Francisco to Washington, D.C. might have effectively prevented
petitioner's attendance at the hearing, but our Rules clearly
provide that his attendance was not required. Rules 50(c),
130(b). Petitioner was advised of the opportunity to submit a
written statement in lieu of his attendance at the hearing in
Washington, D.C. (and given the opportunity to file an amended
petition), and he has failed to so. Changing the place of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011