- 9 -
avoid the nuisance of further litigation. Petitioners proposed
calling their co-counsel, Harvey R. Poe, to testify regarding his
meeting with New York State auditors. Respondent moved to
exclude Mr. Poe's testimony, and the Court granted respondent's
motion.
Rule 131(b) specifies that a party may be subject to
sanctions for unexcused failure to comply with the Standing Pre-
Trial Order. The Court's Standing Pre-Trial Order is intended to
promote the orderly and fair presentation of evidence in Tax
Court trials. See Barkley Co. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 66, 70
(1987). The Standing Pre-Trial Order states in pertinent part:
Each party shall prepare a Trial Memorandum * * * and shall
submit it directly to the undersigned and to the opposing
party not less than 15 days before the first day of the
trial session.
* * * Witnesses who are not identified [in the Trial
Memorandum] will not permitted to testify at the trial
without leave of the Court upon sufficient showing of
cause.
Petitioners, after failing to comply with the Standing Pre-Trial
Order by failing to submit a Trial Memorandum to the Court 15
days before the trial session, failed to show cause why Mr. Poe
should be allowed to testify. Accordingly, the Court properly
granted respondent's motion to exclude his testimony, and we see
no need to further revisit the issue.
Conclusion
Petitioners offered no other evidence to rebut respondent's
determinations in the notice of deficiency. Consequently, we
sustain respondent's determinations that petitioners are liable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011