- 9 -
records had not progressed beyond the limited progress that had
been made at the May 2, 2002, Court-supervised session, with the
limited exception of one adjustment involving the amounts claimed
for State income tax for 1992, 1993, and 1994.
Accordingly, the Court spent most of July 15, 2002
supervising the stipulation process and receiving documents into
evidence. This waste of the Court’s time was precipitated by
petitioners’ failure to comply with the Court’s Rules and Orders
that they meet with respondent and propose evidence for
stipulation, even though respondent had offered to meet with
petitioners on several occasions.
On July 16, 2002, after the examination of the first witness
had begun by petitioners, it became apparent to the Court that a
further exchange of documents and information was required by the
parties before the witnesses could be properly examined. The
Court, for the third time, recessed Case I (for approximately 30
days) until August 19, 2002. In addition, the Court provided the
parties with guidance as to the material that must be exchanged
between the parties and as to the proper organization of those
materials.
On August 19, 2002, the trial of Case I resumed and, after
some preliminary matters, a witness was recalled to the stand.
At that point, respondent moved for a continuance on the ground
that a second case involving similar issues for petitioners’ next
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