Lou Deserio - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
          merits of those motions.  This case was scheduled for trial at              
          the Court’s Phoenix, Arizona, trial session beginning January 29,           
          2001.  Petitioner failed to appear, and respondent filed the                
          above-referenced motions.  The Court, by an order dated January             
          29, 2001, directed petitioner to show cause, if any, why                    
          respondent’s motions should not be granted.                                 
               Respondent determined that petitioner has deficiencies in              
          and additions to Federal income tax as follows:                             
                                        Additions to Tax                              
               Year      Deficiency     Sec. 6651(a)(1)     Sec. 6654                 
               1992      $58,789          $14,697           $2,564                    
               1993      100,681        25,170         4,218                          
               1994      127,233        31,808              6,602                     
               19951     2,438          609                 134                       
               19962     1,810               362                 95                   
               1 The deficiency and additions to tax amounts at issue                 
          differ from the amounts in the Notices of Deficiency dated Sept.            
          23, 1998, pursuant to the Court’s order dated Feb. 11, 2000.                
               2 See supra note 1.                                                    
          Background                                                                  
               In support of his motions, respondent explains that on                 
          several occasions petitioner was invited to stipulate the facts             
          in compliance with this Court’s Rules and pretrial order;                   
          however, petitioner was unresponsive.  Although petitioner                  
          answered respondent’s request for admissions, he failed to                  
          respond to interrogatories or requests for the production of                


               1(...continued)                                                        
          indicated.                                                                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011