- 9 -
The trial of this case occurred over 2 days, separated by
more than 5 months. The delay in completing the trial was caused
in large part by the failure of petitioner’s counsel to organize
the exhibits she wished to include in the second of three
stipulations of fact. The first and third stipulations of fact,
prepared primarily by respondent, were filed with the Court at
the beginning of the first day of trial; the second stipulation
of fact was prepared by Ms. Spaid with substantial assistance
from respondent’s trial counsel, Dale A. Zusi, which was required
by Ms. Spaid’s disorganization. The second stipulation of fact
was subject to respondent’s numerous objections to many exhibits
on relevance, hearsay, authentication, or lack of foundation
grounds and was filed almost 4 months after the first day of
trial.
Before trial, in petitioner’s trial memorandum, and during
the first day of trial, Ms. Spaid made two additional claims on
petitioner’s behalf: That the statutory notice of deficiency was
invalid because the wholesale disallowance of deductions amounted
to a lack of determination, the “Scar” issue; and that the
Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the U.S. Government,
the “Agency” issue.
At the beginning of the second day of trial, petitioner,
through Ms. Spaid, made two oral motions: (1) To shift the
burden of proof to respondent under section 7491(a), claiming
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011