- 10 -
Zuckermans of the likelihood of sanctions under Rule 104(c) in
the event of noncompliance. Petitioner sought an extension to
obtain some of the documents from his banks. He offered no
satisfactory explanation for his failure to produce numerous
other documents requested by respondent and for his failure to
answer any of the interrogatories. Nevertheless, the Court
granted petitioner's request. Following the expiration of the
extended deadline and a conference with petitioner and
respondent's counsel, the Court concluded that petitioner was not
attempting to cooperate in good faith. Accordingly, on motion
by respondent for sanctions under Rule 104(c), by order dated
November 4, 1994, the Court prohibited the Zuckermans from
introducing any documentary or testimonial evidence pertaining
to matters addressed in respondent's discovery requests.
Mrs. Zuckerman took no part in these pretrial proceedings, having
received no actual notice of them despite respondent's efforts to
contact her.
At trial petitioner revealed that he had signed his wife's
name to the 1986 return and, without her knowledge, to the
petition as well. Mrs. Zuckerman testified that she had not
intended to file a joint return with her husband for either year.
In response to these disclosures, on motion by respondent, the
case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction with respect to
Mrs. Zuckerman, the caption of the case was changed, and
respondent amended her answer to recompute petitioner's tax
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