Marvin L. Barmes and Barbara J. Barmes - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          control over the documents requested in respondent’s request for            
          production of documents, if any such documents existed;                     
          (3) relevancy with respect to any documents requested for any tax           
          periods other than 1995; and (4) the Fifth Amendment.  In the               
          October 13, 2000 Order, we considered and rejected each of the              
          first three of petitioners’ objections.  In that Order, we                  
          considered and (1) sustained petitioners’ Fifth Amendment claim             
          insofar as it related to the production of petitioners’ personal            
          documents and (2) rejected that claim insofar as it related to              
          the production of the requested trust documents.                            
               In the October 13, 2000 Order, we cautioned petitioners that           
          we would be inclined to impose sanctions under Rule 104(c) in the           
          event that petitioners did not fully comply with the provisions             
          of that Order requiring them to produce to counsel for respondent           
          the requested trust documents.                                              
               On October 18, 2000, petitioners filed a motion to recon-              
          sider the October 13, 2000 Order (petitioners’ motion to recon-             
          sider).  In that motion, petitioners advanced essentially the               
          same arguments which they had advanced in opposing respondent’s             
          motion to compel and which we rejected in the October 13, 2000              
          Order.  On October 18, 2000, we denied petitioners’ motion to               
               On October 23, 2000, this case was called from the calendar            
          (calendar call) at the Court’s trial session in Indianapolis,               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011