Jorge V. and Carol A. Geaga - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         

          adjustment was made to petitioners' itemized deductions.  The               
          petition was filed June 30, 1997, in which petitioners allege:              
                    (1) * * * IRS knowingly and intentionally accepted                
               deductions claimed in 1995 which were incurred in 1990                 
               and 1991 (in violation of federal law).  (2) * * *                     
               Court is requested to reverse decisions on Dockets                     
               9749-93 and 18569-93.  IRS consciously and                             
               intentionally violated the constitutional rights of the                
               petitioners in securing these decisions.  (3) * * *                    
               Damages are claimed by the petitioners against the IRS                 
               * * * [named employees of the IRS] in the amount of                    
               $314173.00 for:  (a) violation of constitutional rights                
               * * * (b) unlawful and abusive actions by the IRS                      
               resulting in extreme anxiety to the petitioners * * *                  
               (c) * * * imposing a lien on the petitioners causing                   
               extreme anxiety on the petitioners and dependent parent                
               * * * who passed away of a stroke on January 9, 1997.                  
               After the petition was filed, petitioners filed a Motion for           
          Leave to Amend Petition (to increase their claim to damages by              
          $1 million), which was denied; a Motion to Vacate Denial of                 
          Motion to Amend Petition, which was denied; a Motion to Schedule            
          Trial Date, requesting an expedited hearing, which was granted; a           
          Motion for Ruling (on the "incompleteness" of the notice of                 
          deficiency), which was denied; a Motion to Dismiss Respondent's             
          Claim (allegedly "forfeited" as a result of the February 12,                
          1997, letter), which was denied; and a Motion to Reverse                    
          Decisions (in docket Nos. 9749-93 and 18569-93), which was                  
          denied.  They also sent to the Court several other items of                 
          correspondence concerning their claims.  During the pretrial                
          process, petitioners were warned by the Court concerning the                
          provisions of section 6673.                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011