James D. Horn - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
               Petitioner claims that he was mentally incompetent when he             
          signed his Federal income tax returns for the years in issue,2              
          and when he signed Forms 4549-CG, Income Tax Examination Changes,           
          for 1990 and 1991 through 1993, in which he accepted respondent’s           
          audit changes, agreed to immediate assessment of the                        
          deficiencies, and waived his right to challenge the assessments             
          in the Tax Court.  Petitioner has challenged the proposed levies            
          on the sole ground that he does not owe the assessments because             
          respondent failed to allow deductions for worthlessness of his              
          stock in, or uncollectability of his loans to, his affiliated               
          corporations, James Horn Construction Co. (Horn Construction) and           
          Horn Enterprises.                                                           
               We affirm respondent’s determination to proceed with the               
          proposed levies.  Petitioner has failed to establish that he was            

               2Rule 60(c) provides that the “capacity of an individual               
          * * * to engage in litigation in the Court shall be determined by           
          the law of the individual’s domicile.”  Rule 60(d) provides,                
          among other things, that if the Court believes there is a serious           
          question about an individual’s competence to represent himself,             
          “the Court, if it deems justice so requires, may continue the               
          case until appropriate steps have been taken to obtain an                   
          adjudication of the question by a court having jurisdiction so to           
          do, or may take such other action as it deems proper.”  Nothing             
          in petitioner’s statements in telephone conferences or papers               
          filed during the pretrial phase of this case or in his demeanor             
          and conduct at trial led the Court to believe that petitioner was           
          incompetent to represent himself in this proceeding.  Although              
          petitioner had indicated, in a written objection to one of                  
          respondent’s motions, that he wanted a continuance to provide               
          more time to discover evidence to support his claims, including             
          evidence he believed was in the possession of the Internal                  
          Revenue Service, petitioner did not move for or even request a              
          continuance on the ground of incompetence to represent himself.             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011