- 35 -
Matrixinfosys Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-133; Muhich
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-192; Alsop v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1999-172; Harrold v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-274,
affd. 960 F.2d 1053 (8th Cir. 1992); Vnuk v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1979-164, affd. 621 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1980). For the
reasons that follow, we also believe that they instituted, and
have maintained, this proceeding primarily for delay.
We have found facts sufficient for us to conclude that the
J. Shirleys did not cooperate with respondent’s agent during her
examination of the J. Shirleys’ 1995 return. No doubt some or
all of the redundancies in respondent’s adjustments that he has
since conceded could have been avoided had they cooperated. Nor
did the J. Shirleys cooperate with respondent’s counsel in
preparing this case for trial. They failed to answer
respondent’s requests for admissions. Respondent claims, and
they do not deny, that they failed to respond to requests for
discovery and refused to participate in the stipulation of facts
process until the eve of trial. They failed to comply with the
requirements of our standing pretrial order that (1) they file a
trial memorandum and (2) to the extent documents intended to be
introduced into evidence cannot be stipulated, such documents be
identified in writing and exchanged 15 days before trial. At
trial, they failed to present evidence regarding any of the
adjustments giving rise to the deficiency. They orally objected
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011