- 9 -
payer, Connecticut General * * * or Cigna to support
the requested continuance.
5. Petitioner recently traveled to China with no
regard for the March 20, 2006 U.S. Tax Court calendar
date. It is respondent’s understanding that petitioner
did not leave until long after the October 14, 2005
Notice Setting Case for Trial was issued.
6. In support of petitioner’s continuance
request, petitioner stated that he is infirm and
permanently disabled. Such health condition is not
recently contracted, and did not deter the petitioner
from petitioning the Tax Court. Petitioner makes no
claim that his health condition will be improved at
some later date. As such, a continuance should not be
granted based on petitioner’s health condition.
7. Further, petitioner’s ability to complete a
recent 14 to 17 hour flight to China despite his health
condition supports the determination that petitioner
could have appeared in Tax Court on March 20, 2006, had
he not left the country. Lastly, petitioner should
have considered the financial impact of his travel to
China and his ability to return to the U.S. for the
March 20, 2006 calendar prior to his departure.
Petitioner’s motion to continue was denied because
petitioner was already in default of discovery obligations and
because the Court was not persuaded that petitioner could not or
should not be present at trial. Moreover, the documents that
petitioner and Neal failed to produce would be the relevant
evidence as to the taxability of the insurance proceeds in
dispute.
When the case was called for trial, Neal renewed the motion
for continuance, stating that petitioner was still out of the
country. Neal asserted that petitioner had left for China before
the notice setting trial was served. Although Mrs. Connors
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