- 7 -
Petitioners presented no evidence or argument on brief
contesting these facts.3 When this case was called for trial
there was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioners; however,
respondent went forward with the evidence. At the close of the
trial, respondent moved to have his answer amended to conform to
the proof. This Court granted respondent’s oral motion. The
amended answer asks this Court to find that petitioners had total
income of $51,619.64 in 1989, $112,640.08 in 1990, $85,361.57 in
3This matter has a long procedural history. In their
petition filed Sept. 29, 1995, petitioners made standard
frivolous arguments. On Nov. 15, 1995, we ordered petitioners to
amend their petition. On Dec. 4, 1995, petitioners filed an
amended petition again making standard frivolous tax-protester
arguments. On Mar. 5, 1996, we ordered petitioners to file a
second amended petition stating:
petitioners have failed to satisfy the requirements of
Rule 34(b). The best that can be said of both the
petition and amended petition is that petitioners have
assigned error in respect of respondent's
determinations. However, neither the petition nor the
amended petition includes any statement of the facts on
which petitioners base the assignments of error. * * *
[Fn. ref. omitted.]
Petitioners filed a second amended petition that continued to
assert frivolous tax-protester arguments. Accordingly, on May
28, 1996, we ordered that, except for matters dealing with the
burden of proof in the second amended petition, "the petition,
amended petition, and second amended petition will be stricken in
their entirety".
This is the second trial of this case. On May 5, 1997, we
held the first trial. On Mar. 4, 1998, we ordered that the
record from the first trial, including the petitioner's answering
brief, "will not be considered in deciding the merits of the case
unless and to the extent that the parties so stipulate". There
have been no stipulations to this effect.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011