Sam F. and Ingrid D. Ford - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          response to Interrogatory No. 1, indicating that petitioners had            
          not arrived at the $2.8 million figure, but rather that the                 
          Federal Government had arrived at that amount by examining the              
          return of petitioners' son Marc J. Ford.  In the penultimate                
          section of respondent's response to Revised Interrogatory No. 40,           
          entitled "The reasonable inference to be drawn", respondent                 
          stated:  "The adjustment for capital gains in the statutory                 
          notice includes the gains from the disposition of the Tillex and            
          Beverly Development stock, which was purportedly sold by Marc               
          Ford in 1986."                                                              
               Respondent's response to Revised Interrogatory No. 40                  
          concluded with the following statement:                                     
                    Furthermore, the petitioners' alleging, for the                   
               first time during the teleconference with the Court on                 
               April 30, 2002, that their admitted unreported $2.8                    
               million of income for the taxable year 1986 is                         
               unrelated to, and in addition to, the unreported                       
               capital gains set forth in the statutory notice, is                    
               inconsistent with their responses to the respondent's                  
               At the call of the instant case for trial, petitioners filed           
          the first motion now before us, entitled "Motion to Suppress                
          Evidence Illegally Obtained Through Violation of Fed. R. Crim. P.           
          Rule 6(e) and to Determine Issues of the Burden of Proof".  In              
          their motion, petitioners assert that respondent had obtained               
          exhibit 3 in violation of rule 6(e).  Petitioners urge that, as a           
          result of the alleged violation, respondent's use of the document           
          should be suppressed and, further, that respondent should bear              

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011