Robert Newstat - Page 5

                                         - 5 -                                          
          his 1985 year, and we added the following caution directed toward             
          1999:                                                                         
                    Regarding 1999, the parties have filed status                       
               reports indicating that petitioner, in contravention of                  
               the Court’s September 16, 2004, order directing that an                  
               administrative hearing before the Internal Revenue                       
               Service Office of Appeals be held on or before                           
               January 15, 2005, has refused to so meet.  Petitioner                    
               has apparently declined the offered hearing on two                       
               principal grounds, i.e., that he wished first to                         
               dispute or “appeal” the Court’s ruling as to 1985, and                   
               that he was attempting to obtain funds to engage an                      
               attorney.                                                                
                    To eliminate any possible misunderstanding, we                      
               clarify that because the 1985 and 1999 years are                         
               docketed as a single case, the Court must enter a                        
               decision as to both years before any portion of the                      
               opinion at T.C. Memo. 2004-208 will be subject to                        
               appeal.[2]  The Court will afford petitioner a final                     
               opportunity to seek administrative resolution with                       
               respect to 1999 by extending the date for an Appeals                     
               Office hearing to March 31, 2005.  However, we again                     
               caution petitioner that should he not promptly take                      
               advantage of this chance to be heard, either in person,                  
               by telephone, or through correspondence, the Court                       
               expects that respondent will issue a supplemental                        
               notice of determination on the existing record and, if                   
               such determination remains in dispute between the                        
               parties, this case will then be set for trial as to                      
               1999.  If petitioner is presently unable to afford an                    
               attorney, it is nonetheless his obligation to proceed                    
               with alacrity in a pro se manner; the Court will                         
               tolerate no further delay.                                               



               2 This general principle is applied by the Court of Appeals              
          for the Third Circuit, to which appeal in the instant case would              
          normally lie, absent issuance of an order making a determination              
          analogous to those made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) that a matter             
          is an appropriately final subject for appeal.  N.Y. Football                  
          Giants, Inc. v. Commissioner, 349 F.3d 102, 106-107 (3d Cir.                  
          2003); see also sec. 7482(a)(2).                                              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011