Donald G. Ford - Page 8

                                         -8-                                          
          Schulz and other tax professionals after disclosing all of the              
          relevant facts to them.2                                                    
              B.   Procedural History                                                
               This case was set for trial in Louisville, Kentucky, several           
          times, but was continued on November 7, 1997, September 30, 1998,           
          December 22, 1999, and February 6, 2001.  This case was called              
          for report at the February 5, 2001, Louisville, Kentucky, trial             
          session and set for trial at a special session of the Court to              
          begin on April 23, 2001.  A stipulation of facts was filed on               
          April 3, 2001.  However, the case was continued on April 17,                
          2001, and the special session was canceled.                                 
               Motions to withdraw filed by petitioner’s counsel Robert C.            
          Webb and Scott William Dolson were granted on January 9, 2002,              
          and September 5, 2002.                                                      
               Petitioner, his adult son, and respondent had several                  
          discussions in an effort to narrow the issues or resolve this               
          case, as ordered by the Court on October 1, 2003.  The                      
          discussions did not result in a narrowing of the issues.  Around            
          February 9, 2004, petitioner’s son told respondent’s counsel that           




               2  On Mar. 22, 2001, an amendment to petition was filed in             
          which petitioner alleged that respondent was barred by the                  
          doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and waiver, and             
          by sec. 6212 from proceeding with this case.  On May 1, 2001, an            
          answer to amended petition was filed in which respondent denied             
          the allegations in the amendment to petition.                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011