Holly Ruocco - Page 9

                                        - 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