- 5 -
(6) Lastly, on June 18, 2001, petitioner filed a “Motion for
Reconsideration of Court Ruling Granting Respondent’s Motion to
Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum” and “Motion for Reconsideration of
Denial of Sanctions on Respondent”.
When this case was called, petitioner accused both Ms.
O’Connor and respondent’s counsel of some form of chicanery, the
details of which are, at best, confusing. Petitioner seems to
indicate that the stipulation of facts he executed is not the
same stipulation that was filed with the Court. But at the
initial hearing on March 7, 2001, the Court went over the
stipulation of facts, paragraph by paragraph, with petitioner,
and that is the stipulation of facts filed with the Court. Thus,
we hold petitioner to the stipulation of facts as filed.
Furthermore, we note that from what we have observed, Ms.
O’Connor and respondent’s counsel performed in a completely
ethical and professional manner. It is unseemly that petitioner
would besmirch the character of both counsel in this fashion.
It subsequently became somewhat clear that petitioner
contends that, while conceding that his wife and he had omitted
the nonemployee compensation from the 1996 tax return, they both
had travel expenses that should reduce the amount of taxable
income. Petitioner, however, presented no records or other
corroborating evidence to document the alleged travel expenses.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011