- 9 -
petitioner asserted that the Court had incorrectly concluded who
has the burden of proof in this case and complained that the
Court’s comments during the conference telephone call were
indicative of bias and incompetence.1 The Motion to Continue was
denied. (There is no explanation in the record why the documents
that petitioner wishes the Court to have, such as the Motion for
a Date and Time Set Certain for Trial and the Motion to Continue,
are timely delivered to the Court, while other documents, such as
petitioner’s trial memorandum and her response to the order to
show cause, are delayed due to problems with receipt of the
Court’s mail.)
On January 25, 2002, petitioner’s Motion to Recuse was
filed. Petitioner also filed a Motion in Limine seeking to
preclude respondent’s attributing income to petitioner either
from the limited liability company or from a trust that
respondent characterized as sham or as a grantor trust.
1Substantially identical motions to recuse based on this
conference telephone call were filed in other cases on the
Phoenix calendar; in the same cases, other substantially
identical documents had repeatedly been filed. Those cases
include Broderick v. Commissioner, docket Nos. 432-00 and
2070-01; Burke v. Commissioner, docket No. 13410-00; Cahill v.
Commissioner, docket No. 303-01; Frentheway v. Commissioner,
docket No. 8041-00; Lehmann v. Commissioner, docket No. 1008-01.
All of these cases appear to involve trusts of the sort that have
been consistently held ineffective to avoid tax on services
rendered by taxpayers. See, e.g., Johnston v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2000-315 n.2; Lipari v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-280;
George v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-381.
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