- 74 -
abandoned and/or ignored, and differing amounts and/or theories
were advanced by respondent through expert witnesses.
Respondent does not deny that petitioners were not provided
reports before the issuance of the notices of deficiency.
Respondent generally explains that pre-notice reports were not
compiled and/or provided because petitioners postponed meetings,
delayed production, were uncooperative, and attempted to
“mislead” respondent with respect to the relationship between DHL
and DHLI.
In that regard, the Court has observed that, throughout the
pretrial and trial portions of these cases, the parties were
contentious and intractable. During the pretrial and trial
portions of these cases, respondent’s third-party summonses
seeking information about petitioners remained in litigation in
other courts. In the proceedings before this Court, the parties’
representatives gave no ground on any point, causing, in some
instances, the unnecessary protraction of the trial and parts of
the pretrial portion of these cases. Petitioners did not agree
to extend the period for assessment, triggering issuance of the
notices of deficiency prior to respondent’s receipt of complete
information. The production of documents and responses to
interrogatories by petitioners lingered beyond the commencement
of the trial and necessitated certain procedural adjustments to
accommodate generally dilatory compliance by petitioners and the
untimely receipt of information by respondent. This pattern of
Page: Previous 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011