Cliff Connors - Page 9

                                        - 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                  
               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