Vernon W. Hartman, Jr. and Virginia M. Hartman - Page 11




                                        - 11 -                                         

                  respondent's counsel and to exchange documents                       
                  and other information necessary to agree upon                        
                  and submit the comprehensive stipulations                            
                  required by Rule 91, Tax Court Rules of                              
                  Practice and Procedure".                                             

             The order further provides as follows:                                    

                       ORDERED that on or before April 28, 1998,                       
                  each petitioner shall file a separate statement                      
                  setting forth each and every issue presented in                      
                  this case for decision.  Petitioners are warned                      
                  that the Court may refuse to consider any issue                      
                  that is not identified in their statements.                          

             Neither petitioner responded to the Court's order of                      
             April 1, 1998, and both petitioners again failed to pro-                  
             vide the Court with a statement of the issues for decision.               
                  Subsequently, when this case was called for trial,                   
             a new attorney entered his appearance on behalf of both                   
             petitioners.  Respondent also filed a second motion to                    
             dismiss for lack of prosecution.  The motion states as                    
             follows:                                                                  

                       31. Due to petitioner's lack of cooperation                     
                  with his counsel, petitioner's counsel cancelled                     
                  several scheduled meetings with respondent that                      
                  he had promised to attend in his Status Report                       
                  and Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss.                      
                       32. On or about March 5, 1998, petitioner's                     
                  counsel sought to withdraw from this case due to                     
                  petitioner's lack of cooperation with him.                           








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011