- 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