- 8 -
respondent, after answering certain questions asked by the Court,
orally moved to be allowed to withdraw respondent’s motions and
that the case be continued. The Court granted respondent’s
motion.
On October 10, 2002, the Court sent the parties a notice
setting this case for trial at the trial session of the Court in
Jacksonville, Florida, beginning on March 3, 2003. Accompanying
that notice was the Court’s Standing Pre-Trial Order.
On January 9, 2003, petitioner filed a motion for summary
judgment in which he asserted that he was entitled to judgment as
a matter of law because respondent failed to prepare substitutes
for returns. In respondent’s response to petitioner’s motion for
summary judgment, respondent, citing Schiff v. United States, 919
F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1990), Roat v. Commissioner, 847 F.2d 1379,
1381 (9th Cir. 1988), and Hartman v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 542
(1975), asserted that section 6211(a) does not require the
Commissioner to prepare a substitute for return before
determining a deficiency and issuing a notice. Petitioner’s
motion for summary judgment was denied.
The trial in this case was held in Jacksonville, Florida, on
March 4, 2003. Petitioner took the stand but refused to testify
as to any facts relevant to his Federal income tax liabilities.
Petitioner stated that he feared that any statements he might
make could be used by the Government in a subsequent criminal
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