Fred Allnutt - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          and dated by the person making service verifying that he or she             
          had delivered the subpoena to the summoned witness and had                  
          tendered fees and mileage pursuant to Rule 148.  The Court                  
          granted respondent’s motions to quash the subpoenas.                        
               At trial on July 15, 2003, petitioner stated that he had 100           
          boxes of records to support the bases he claimed for equipment              
          that he sold in the years in issue, but that he did not have them           
          with him.  Trial was continued to give petitioner more time to              
          present his records to respondent.                                          
               3.   Trial on January 5, 2004                                          
               On July 28, 2003, petitioner faxed to respondent a list                
          entitled “Fred W. Allnutt, Equipment” that petitioner had not               
          previously given to respondent.                                             
               On November 5, 2003, further trial was set for January 5,              
          2004, to give petitioner another opportunity to offer evidence              
          relating to the basis issue.  Also on November 5, 2003, the Court           
          ordered petitioner to provide to respondent, not later than                 
          December 22, 2003, all documents that he wanted to use at trial             
          to substantiate his claimed bases, organized by asset.                      
          Petitioner failed to provide any additional documents to                    
          respondent by December 22, 2003.                                            
               On December 17, 2003, petitioner again prepared subpoenas              
          for respondent’s revenue agent who audited petitioner’s returns             
          for the years in issue and his supervisor.  Respondent’s                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011