- 9 -
Rule 133; Schaefer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-163, affd.
without published opinion 188 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 1999); Harris v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-638.
From March 1, 2004, when petitioner filed his first motion
for continuance, through March 16, 2005, when petitioner filed
his fourth motion, petitioner has asserted that he has been
unable to review his records on account of his incarceration.
This ground for continuance did not arise within 30 days of trial
and thus does not justify granting petitioner’s motion. See Rule
133.
Petitioner, acting pro se, filed his third motion for
continuance on February 28, 2005, which was denied on March 2,
2005. While the record is unclear, it is likely that petitioner
hired Mr. Holtz and Mr. Mather, who in turn hired an accountant,
sometime after the third motion was denied, or within 2 weeks of
trial. In addition, Mr. Holtz and Mr. Mather were not recognized
by the Court as petitioner’s representatives until they filed an
entry of appearance on March 16, 2005, the day of trial.
Petitioner had more than 1-1/2 years to hire counsel and an
accountant after his first attorney withdrew. His employment of
counsel and an accountant so close to trial does not justify
granting petitioner’s motion. See Rule 133; Schaefer v.
Commissioner, supra; Harris v. Commissioner, supra.
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