David A. Lehmann - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
               The case was called from the calendar of the trial session             
          of the Court in Phoenix, Arizona, on October 18, 2004.                      
          Petitioner at that time submitted a pretrial memorandum that                
          incorporated by reference the legal arguments stated in                     
          petitioner’s earlier response to respondent’s motion for summary            
          judgment but offered no additional reasoning.  Petitioner’s                 
          pretrial memorandum was filed with the Court after respondent               
          indicated no objection to late filing.  The case was then heard             
          on October 19, 2004, and both petitioner and his wife testified.            
               At the close of trial, petitioner stated:  “All I have to              
          say is I move to have this case dismissed on the grounds that               
          they weren’t prepared.”  Presumably, the basis for this statement           
          is that, as a predicate to the admission into evidence as                   
          business records of copies of the statutory notices of deficiency           
          underlying the assessments, counsel for respondent requested a              
          brief recess to procure the testimony of a revenue agent.  This             
          request was granted, and a revenue agent testified as to the                
          manner in which the documents in petitioner’s administrative file           
          were maintained in the regular course of business.                          
                                       OPINION                                        
          I.  Oral Motion To Dismiss                                                  
               As a threshold matter, the Court briefly addresses                     
          petitioner’s motion to dismiss this case on grounds of                      
          respondent’s lack of preparedness.  Although we agree that                  






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