John T. Higginbotham - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          and 1999 tax returns.4  Petitioner failed to attend the December            
          3, 2004, meeting, and he did not contact respondent to discuss              
          rescheduling options.                                                       
               This case was first set for trial during the Court’s March             
          14, 2005, New York, New York, trial session.  A notice setting              
          case for trial, dated October 8, 2004, and a standing pretrial              
          order were sent to petitioner.  On December 27, 2004, respondent            
          filed requests for admission.  Petitioner’s response to the                 
          request for admissions was due on January 24, 2005.  The Court              
          did not receive a response to the request for admissions from               
          petitioner, and, as a result, the statements of fact in the                 
          request for admissions were deemed admitted pursuant to Rule                
          90(c).                                                                      
               By letter dated February 4, 2005, petitioner stated that he            
          did not attend the December 3, 2004, meeting because respondent             
          had not mailed him his remaining tax returns.  Petitioner also              
          stated that he had contacted his previous employers, who informed           
          him that they no longer had his records for the years in issue.             
          He requested copies of his Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements,              
          and Forms 1099 from respondent for years 1989 through 1993.                 
               On March 2, 2005, petitioner, via teleconference with the              
          Court and respondent’s counsel, requested a continuance due to              


               4Respondent contends that these were the only returns of               
          petitioner that respondent possessed as of that date.                       





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011