- 7 -
THE COURT: I cannot say that it’s not likely to
lead to discovery of admissible evidence, Ms. Izen. So
I do not view the interrogatory as seeking irrelevant
information. The information, it seems to me, ought to
be readily at her disposal. I would direct that you
provide respondent a complete answer to Interrogatory
No. 38, including areas of study and universities and
colleges attended, within two weeks.
MS. IZEN: We’ll do that, Your Honor.
In an Order dated May 30, 2000, the Court stated, among
other things:
At the hearing on May 3, 2000, the Court
questioned petitioners’ good faith in complying with
the Court’s Orders. Those doubts are reinforced by
petitioners’ May 22, 2000, motion [requesting a 14-day
extension of the May 17, 2000, due date]. The
allegedly heavy workload of petitioners’ counsel is not
a valid ground for failing to comply with the Court’s
Orders. If petitioners’ counsel is too busy to
prosecute * * * [these cases] properly, then
petitioners’ counsel should consider withdrawing. Upon
due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioners’ motion for enlargement
of time within which to respond to respondent’s second
set of interrogatories is granted, in that petitioners
are ordered no later than June 1, 2000, to serve on
respondent’s counsel, and provide to the Court, full,
complete, and responsive answers, made under oath and
in good faith, to interrogatories numbered 37, 38, and
39, as set forth in respondent’s second interrogatories
to petitioners.
If petitioners fail to comply with this Order, the
Court shall impose sanctions, which may include,
without limitation, sanctions under I.R.C. section
6673(a) and Tax Court Rule 202, and precluding
petitioners from introducing evidence with regard to
respondent’s determination that petitioners are liable
for additions to tax under I.R.C. section 6662(a).
Despite further extensions and delays, petitioners have never
answered interrogatory No. 38.
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