- 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