- 3 -
appropriate sanctions for noncompliance. The Court received
respondent’s trial memorandum on January 28, 1998. Petitioners’
counsel did not submit a trial memorandum.
The case was called from the calendar on Monday, February 9,
1998. Counsel for petitioners and respondent appeared and were
heard. The parties reported that no basis of settlement was
reached and no stipulation of facts had been agreed to and
signed. Respondent stated that he had no contact with Mr.
Tijerina and had not received a trial memorandum from petitioners
and orally moved that this case be dismissed. Respondent did not
state the grounds for his motion. Mr. Tijerina made no objection
to respondent’s oral motion. Counsel for petitioners stated that
he would meet with respondent’s representatives in an attempt to
settle the case, and, in the event the case was not settled,
petitioners would be ready for trial on Wednesday, February 11,
1998.
The case was recalled for trial on Wednesday, February 11,
1998. Counsel appeared and offered a bare bones stipulation of
facts into evidence with two exhibits; namely, petitioners’ 1994
Federal income tax return and the notice of deficiency. The
stipulation of facts, together with exhibits, was received into
evidence. Respondent’s trial memorandum, received in Washington,
D.C., on January 28, 1998, was also filed at trial. Respondent
did not pursue his oral motion to dismiss. Respondent then
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011