- 5 -
to encourage informal exchange of information and informal
discovery, through conference telephone calls and status reports
from the parties. Petitioners failed to comply, and respondent
filed motions to compel responses. Respondent’s motions were
granted, and petitioners were ordered to provide responses on or
before April 7, 2000. The Court’s order included the following:
ORDERED that in the event petitioners do not fully
comply with the provisions of this Order, this Court
may impose sanctions pursuant to Tax Court Rule 104,
which may include dismissal of these cases and entry of
a decision against petitioners.
Petitioners failed to comply, and a Motion to Impose
Sanctions was filed by respondent. Johnson filed a Notice of
Petitioner’s Temporary Incapacity, claiming that Johnson’s
physical condition precluded her participation in the trial set
in Washington, D.C. The Court continued the cases for trial to
the December 4, 2000, regular trial session previously set in
Houston, but the cases remained calendared for hearing on
respondent’s Motion to Impose Sanctions on May 3, 2000, in
Washington, D.C.
At the May 3, 2000, hearing, Izen’s associate, Jane Afton
Izen, appeared for petitioners. Petitioners were directed to
provide further answers to interrogatories and to produce certain
documents. Specifically, with respect to interrogatory No. 38 of
the second set of interrogatories, the following colloquy
occurred:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011