John Parks Trowbridge - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          a motion to dismiss (the motions to dismiss) and denied.3  In               
          those motions, petitioners reiterated their claims that we lack             
          jurisdiction and stated that they wished to withdraw their                  
          petitions:  “Petitioner hereby gives Notice of WITHDRAWAL of the            
          petition for review by the United States Tax Court.  This Notice            
          of Withdrawal of petition makes moot, voids, and cancels all                
          proceedings previously scheduled by this Court for action upon              
          the petition filed in error.”                                               
          Trial Session                                                               
               These cases were called from the calendar at the Court’s               
          trial session commencing on Monday, December 3, 2001, in Houston,           
          Texas.  On Friday, November 30, 2001, an employee of the Court              
          Clerk’s Office contacted petitioners and reminded them that they            
          were expected to appear at the call of the calendar on Monday,              
          December 3.  When, on that date, the cases were called from the             
          calendar, petitioners failed to appear.  Counsel for respondent             
          appeared and announced ready for trial.  The Court set the cases            
          for trial on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., and                   
          directed the deputy trial clerk to contact petitioners by                   
          telephone and notify them of the date and time of the trial.                
          When the cases were recalled from the calendar on December 4, for           

               3  To the extent petitioners were relying on grounds other             
          than jurisdiction, a decision dismissing the proceedings would              
          have been considered a decision sustaining the deficiencies                 
          determined by respondent.  See sec. 7459(d).  Since we did not              
          believe that was the result petitioners intended, we denied the             
          motions to dismiss.                                                         

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011