- 30 -
were payable to Mr. Thompson, petitioner’s father, and issued by
Polaris with respect to Mr. Thompson’s investment; and
(9) petitioner’s receipt of petitioner’s sales proceeds from the
sale of the arcade games.
In support of his position that he does not have the unre-
ported income at issue for 1995 and 1996, petitioner relies on
his testimony. In an Order dated May 13, 2003, at the call of
this case from the calendar on June 2, 2003, and at the trial of
this case on June 3, 2003, the Court advised petitioner that he
may not introduce at the trial in the instant case any evidence
that is inconsistent with or contrary to the deemed admissions
and the deemed stipulations in this case.
At trial, respondent objected to certain of petitioner’s
testimony on the ground that it was inconsistent with or contrary
to certain of the deemed admissions and deemed stipulations in
this case. The Court sustained respondent’s objections to the
extent the Court found petitioner’s proffered testimony to be
inconsistent with or contrary to certain of those admissions and
stipulations. Nonetheless, petitioner persisted in proffering
testimony, to which respondent objected as inconsistent with or
contrary to certain of the deemed admissions and deemed stipula-
tions in this case. In order to facilitate the trial in this
case without repeated objections by respondent, the Court allowed
respondent to make a standing objection to petitioner’s testimony
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011