Holly Ruocco - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          asserted that the Tax Court rule regarding stipulation “runs                
          afoul of the Fifth Amendment.”  During the conference telephone             
          call with the parties, the Court advised petitioner that she                
          faced several problems in this case, including the necessity of             
          showing that the bank deposits in issue were not payment for her            
          services and that income received by the chiropractic clinic                
          should be treated as community property.  The Court further                 
          advised her that business deductions to which she might be                  
          entitled had not been allowed and that penalties were likely to             
          be imposed because this case appeared to be similar to other                
          recent cases involving similar facts.  Petitioner insisted that             
          respondent had the burden of proof.  The Court indicated that               
          respondent could satisfy his burden by introducing the bank                 
          records into evidence.  Petitioner stated that the records                  
          relating to the deductions were in storage.  The Court suggested            
          that, if petitioner made a good faith attempt to secure the                 
          records and to abandon the meritless arguments previously made by           
          her, then, and only then, the Court would consider a continuance            
          of the case.  Petitioner stated that she would contact                      
          respondent’s counsel concerning the matters discussed.                      
               After the conference telephone call, the Court’s order to              
          show cause was made absolute.  On January 18, 2002, the Court               
          received from petitioner a Motion to Continue, in which                     
          petitioner repeated her erroneous legal arguments.  In addition,            

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011