- 5 -
any reason why the matters set forth in respondent's
request for admissions should not be deemed admitted
pursuant to Rule 90(c).
Petitioner did not appear when her case was called at
the instant trial session in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
on May 18, 1998. Respondent appeared through counsel
and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.
Respondent's motion appeared meritorious; nevertheless,
the Court ordered the case to be recalled on the following
day to "give petitioner another opportunity to appear".
On the following day, petitioner did not appear initially
when her case was called, and the Court orally granted
respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.
Shortly thereafter, petitioner appeared and asked the
Court to vacate the dismissal of her case. She stated
that she had prepared a delinquent return for 1992, one
of the 2 years in issue, that showed an overpayment of
$1,545.63. Petitioner did not proffer a return for 1993,
but she represented that "the same is true [i.e., that
there is an overpayment] * * * with respect to 1993."
She asked the Court to allow her "to file the returns
and have the Internal Revenue examine them and make sure
that they are accurate." Petitioner also claimed to have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011