- 8 -
Respondent notified petitioners that the documents would have to
be submitted to respondent by August 23, 2001, to be in
compliance with the February 5, 2001, order. In addition,
respondent notified petitioners that failure to submit the
documents would result in a renewed motion to dismiss for failure
to properly prosecute. This letter was sent to petitioners by
certified mail and was signed for by Mr. Nunn.
In preparation of their case for trial, petitioners did not
submit the documents to respondent in an organized manner as
required by the February 5, 2001, order and the notice setting
the case for trial for October 22, 2001.
On October 11, 2001, petitioners filed a motion for a second
continuance stating that the documents were “re-catalogued” and
submitted to respondent. In the motion, petitioners alleged
respondent was “skirting the law” by not accepting the documents
presented as sufficient support for the deductions reported.
Petitioners also claimed respondent was blatantly lying about
petitioners’ willingness to cooperate. Additionally, petitioners
asserted that they had never received any written notices from
respondent requesting documentation. The Court denied
petitioners’ motion on October 11, 2001.
At calendar call on October 22, 2001, respondent filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute. The Court
took respondent’s motion under advisement and allowed Mr. Nunn to
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