Patricia R. Carpentier - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          prejudice towards petitioner and her counsel.4  Petitioner’s                
          Motion for Reconsideration was denied.                                      
               Thereafter, respondent on December 26, 2000, filed a Motion            
          to Dismiss on the ground that petitioner had failed to prosecute            
          her case.  One of the alleged reasons relied upon by respondent             
          for seeking dismissal was that “Notwithstanding the many efforts            
          by respondent to secure cooperation from petitioner and/or her              
          counsel, petitioner has failed and refused in every respect to              
          cooperate to move this case toward resolution.”  On January 3,              
          2001, petitioner moved for a fourth change of the place of trial            
          from Portland, Oregon to San Diego, California.  Respondent                 
          objected to petitioner’s motion and the matter was set for                  
          hearing.  After a telephone conference in which petitioner’s                
          counsel agreed to pursue the underlying merits of respondent’s              
          determination, the Court in a February 2, 2001, Order, continued            
          the case from the February 15, 2001, Portland, Oregon, trial                
          session and granted petitioner’s motion to change the place of              
          trial to San Diego, California.                                             
               On March 13, 2001, petitioner Moved to Stay Proceedings and            
          her motion was denied.  Essentially, petitioner alleged that the            
          proceeding should be stayed until petitioner concludes her                  

               4 In our Memorandum Opinion, Carpentier v. Commissioner,               
          T.C. Memo. 2000-258, the Court held that the matters deemed                 
          admitted under Rules 37(c) and 90(c) established (1) the nature             
          and amounts of items of income that petitioner failed to report,            
          and (2) her liabilities for the additions to tax determined in              
          the notice of deficiency.                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011