- 11 -
After introducing the two exhibits into evidence,
Mr. Bentley directed the Court’s attention to petitioner’s
signature on his three tax returns and, pointing out that perjury
is a felony in New York, stated as follows:
The reason that I bring this to your Honor’s
attention is to invoke a presumption under the criminal
law of innocence for someone who is accused or
suggested of having committed a crime, certainly a
felony. The reason that I raise that presumption is so
that I can introduce the tax returns as being the
initial showing of credible evidence in petitioner’s
case to the effect that he is entitled to the
deductions that he has taken, because what he is
presenting under penalty of perjury is a statement to
the effect that he’s entitled to take those deductions,
has paid what he has said that he has paid, and that
such deductions are appropriate and not--the tax code.
Having said all of those things, petitioner rests.
Petitioner did not testify, nor were any witnesses called on his
behalf. Respondent called Ms. O’Connell, who testified regarding
the examination of petitioner’s returns. Respondent also
introduced four additional exhibits pertaining to the
examination. At the conclusion of trial, a briefing schedule was
set with simultaneous opening briefs due July 28, 2003, and reply
briefs due September 11, 2003.
On July 24, 2003, the Court received from petitioner a
document entitled “Petitioner’s Motion To Extend Time To File
Brief, For Partial Summary Judgment, and To Reopen the Record”,
with accompanying exhibits. This document was returned to
petitioner unfiled, with the explanation that it represented an
improper joinder of motions under Rule 54 and an inappropriate
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