- 7 -
and that the Court would entertain any motions either side wished
to make, including “a motion under Rule 91(f) to force
stipulation”. The two cases were later consolidated and
calendared for trial at the Court’s October 18, 2004, session in
Phoenix.
On August 10, 2004, respondent sent to petitioner a letter
scheduling a second pretrial conference pursuant to Branerton
Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, for August 18, 2004.5 Respondent
also cautioned petitioner to review and consider the information
he had previously been provided regarding his legal arguments and
Fifth Amendment assertions. Petitioner responded with a letter
dated August 18, 2004, stating that his health problems prevented
a face-to-face meeting and that respondent was in error with
regard to the validity of petitioner’s Fifth Amendment
objections. Petitioner indicated that he would continue to
assert the Fifth Amendment in response to proposed stipulations
of fact and that if respondent should seek an order to show cause
under Rule 91(f), petitioner would request appropriate sanctions
for unnecessarily multiplying the litigation.
On August 19, 2004, respondent sent to petitioner a letter
enclosing a proposed stipulation of facts. This letter was
5 The Court notes that respondent’s motion to impose a sec.
6673 penalty refers, in an apparent typographical error, to this
letter as having been sent on Aug. 19, 2004. The copy of the
letter itself contained in the record is dated Aug. 10, 2004.
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