- 8 -
testify. * * * The injustice to petitioner by the Court’s failure
to grant the motion for continuance is profound.”
While petitioner’s first three motions for continuance are
not in issue, they provide important context. All three motions
were filed approximately 2 weeks before the respective calendar
calls and listed the same four grounds for continuance: (1)
Petitioner’s incarceration; (2) to allow petitioner to hire an
attorney; (3) to give petitioner the time to review records with
an accountant; and (4) to give petitioner time to receive bank
records.
Petitioner’s fourth motion for continuance was not filed
until March 16, 2005, on the morning of trial and 2 days after
calendar call. Essentially, the fourth motion offers three
grounds for continuance. Two of the grounds are: (1) Petitioner
has been unable to review his records on account of his
incarceration; and (2) petitioner recently hired counsel and an
accountant to help in the preparation of the case.
Rule 133 provides that a motion for continuance filed within
30 days of the trial date will be denied unless the ground for
continuance arose during that period or there is a good reason
for not making the motion sooner. See Higginbotham v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-270; Smith v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-198. Employment of an attorney or an accountant
shortly before trial ordinarily is not grounds for a continuance.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011