- 4 -
Memoranda and specified "that witnesses who are not identified
will not be permitted to testify at the trial without leave of
the Court upon sufficient showing of cause". Petitioners failed
to timely submit a Trial Memorandum to the Court.
When the instant case was called for trial, counsel for
petitioners appeared and requested leave to call as a witness
Harvey R. Poe, co-counsel for petitioners. Counsel for
respondent moved to exclude such testimony based upon
petitioners' failure to comply with the Court's Standing Pre-
Trial Order. The Court granted respondent's motion. Following
granting of the motion, the parties agreed to submit the case
fully stipulated.
Discussion
I. Validity of Notice of Deficiency
Petitioners contend that the notice of deficiency is invalid
on the grounds that respondent failed to make a valid
determination insofar as the notice of deficiency reveals that
the deficiency was based solely upon petitioners' consent to an
increased State income tax liability.
Petitioners' assertion that respondent failed to make a
valid determination within the meaning of section 6212(a)1 is
misplaced. Petitioners, citing Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d
1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983), contend that
1 Sec. 6212(a) provides in pertinent part: "If the
Secretary determines that there is a deficiency in respect of any
tax * * *, he is authorized to send notice of such deficiency to
the taxpayer."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011