Holly Ruocco - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          Petitioner also filed a Motion to Dismiss and a motion to                   
          reconsider the Court’s order to show cause.  In her various                 
          motions and in her trial memorandum, petitioner contends that               
          respondent has the burden of proving unreported income, that                
          certain issues are not properly before the Court, and that the              
          Court’s stated position on burden of proof is so erroneous as to            
          show bias and prejudice.  Petitioner’s motions were denied.                 
               When the case was called for trial, respondent’s counsel               
          acknowledged that, after the conference telephone call, he had              
          received a list of checks for 1996 that purportedly supported               
          deductions claimed by petitioner.  The list, a copy of which is             
          attached to respondent’s motion to dismiss, includes payments for           
          things such as student loans, a wedding present, and aquarium               
          supplies that are patently personal and not deductible.  Because            
          petitioner was not prepared to proceed to trial, the Court stated           
          that she would be held in default but that she could move to set            
          aside the default in 30 days upon making an offer of proof.                 
          Repeating her position that the Government has the burden of                
          proof, petitioner requested that the trial proceed.  The case was           
          set for trial on January 30, 2002.                                          
               At the time of trial, respondent’s motion to dismiss was               
          filed, and respondent reported that no progress had been made               
          with respect to potential deductions.  Petitioner restated her              
          position that “the Government has the burden of proof                       

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