David Lee Smith and Mary Julia Hook - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          the Court’s Rules.3  Respondent outlined a series of                        
          communications between petitioners and respondent wherein                   
          pretrial meetings were scheduled and, in each instance re-                  
          scheduled or canceled by petitioners.                                       
               Petitioners’ continuance motion was set for hearing at the             
          September 10, 2001, Trial Session, at which time respondent moved           
          for a dismissal due to petitioners’ lack of prosecution.  At the            
          hearing petitioner Hook advised the Court that, although she                
          remained at the location described in the petition, petitioner              
          Smith had moved to another State and probably did not receive               
          service of the Court’s Orders or respondent’s motion to dismiss.            
          Petitioner Smith’s address was provided to the Court, and all               
          subsequent service of papers was made to petitioners Hook and               
          Smith at their separate addresses.  Petitioners were permitted to           
          file a written response to respondent’s dismissal motion.  The              
          Court, by an order dated October 12, 2001, denied respondent’s              
          motion to dismiss and granted petitioners’ continuance motion.              
               By a November 28, 2001, notice setting case for trial, along           
          with an attached standing pretrial order, petitioners were                  
          notified that Case I had been set for trial at the Court’s                  
          Denver, Colorado, Trial Session scheduled for April 29, 2002.               


               3 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in           
          effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the           
          Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise                 
          indicated.                                                                  





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