Chih H. and Chu F. Chu - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
                    write the makeup figures) to take the money from                  
                    the taxpayer pockets illegally.  As the profes-                   
                    sional always use the rules in favor of his mis-                  
                    conduct as the fraud activity, he would never tell                
                    anyone by holding such case for how many years                    
                    would dismiss (drop) the case; Since by holding                   
                    the case, IRS put the interest on it, and when IRS                
                    owed petitioner money, also, holding the check for                
                    the taxable year of 1990 without releasing by                     
                    making the excuses.  As there are two different                   
                    issues.                                                           
               18) Because of the following reasons, the settlement                   
                    was never reached.                                                
                    A) The deficiency of taxable year 1991, 1992 and                  
                    1993 came out without giving the petitioners the                  
                    documents describing where the figures from or how                
                    it was calculated.  The only paper received was                   
                    last week the exhibits of respondent letter, which                
                    had lots of expenses, items being deleted or par-                 
                    tially report.  In other words, The stipulation                   
                    issues were not only vague, incomplete but, very                  
                    confusing to the court if the judge knowing in                    
                    1992 and 1993 the petitioners had no main job and                 
                    using up the savings or even the IRA fund as emer-                
                    gency seed money used to start up the new trade                   
                    business; The tax deficiency in 1992 (Petitioner                  
                    lost the main job) was calculated twice as higher                 
                    as in the 1991 ($2,973.00 + $595) which petitioner                
                    still had the main job.  In 1993 (the second year                 
                    of the new start-up trade business), the defi-                    
                    ciency was calculated eight times ($20,379 +                      
                    $4076) higher than the 1991.  It would make the                   
                    judge very confused by just looking at the above                  
                    figures made-up by the respondent deliberately to                 
                    deceive the court judgment.                                       
                    (B) Before the deadline (Feb. 2, 1999); Judge                     
                    agreed the withdrawal of petitioners counsel.                     
                    Because no progress report and even negligence of                 
                    the meeting called by the judge.                                  
                    (C) The petitioner (Spouse) was under cancer                      
                    treatment and mentally in the bad shape.  Peti-                   
                    tioners have to totally trust and rely on the                     
                    counsel hired with the $200/hr rate.                              






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011