- 4 -
* * * * * * *
Since I have been traveling pursuant to my
occupation continuously from mid-June until this
week, I have been unable to procure the necessary
forms.
Thank you for your kind assistance in this
matter.
After the Court informed petitioners that the above
petition did not comply with the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure as to form and content, the Court
received an amended petition, which states as follows:
I disagree with all the changes in the Notice
of Deficiency. Due to the recurring scheduling
difficulties with the local examiner, I was
unable to properly establish the validity of
the disputed deductions. This was partly due
to the examiner's unavailability and partly to
my extensive travel schedule as a professional
singer. Thus the findings were arbitrary and
incorrect.
By notice dated August 23, 1996, the Court set this
case for trial on January 27, 1997. A few weeks before
trial, petitioners sent a letter to the Court in which they
requested continuance of the case because of Mr. Hartman's
travel schedule and the fact that Mr. Hartman was working
with representatives of the Appeals Office "with the aim of
reaching a settlement in this case." The Court granted the
continuance with no objection by respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011