Robert Ho - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          Respondent’s Motion In Limine                                               
               On October 21, 2005, respondent filed a Motion In Limine to            
          preclude petitioner from introducing any testimony or documentary           
          evidence challenging the existence or amount of his underlying              
          tax liability.                                                              
               Respondent relied on the following predicate facts in                  
          support of his motion in limine:  (1) Respondent issued a notice            
          of deficiency for 2001 to petitioner at his last known address;             
          (2) petitioner received the notice of deficiency; and (3)                   
          petitioner failed to file a petition for redetermination with the           
          Court.  See sec. 6213(a).  Respondent therefore argued that                 
          petitioner is precluded from challenging the underlying tax                 
          liability, including additions to tax and interest, in this                 
          section 6330 proceeding.                                                    
               On October 31, 2005, this matter was called for hearing at             
          the Court’s trial session in Los Angeles, California.  Counsel              
          for respondent appeared and presented argument.9  Although                  
          petitioner did not appear at the hearing, he filed with the Court           
          the following:  (1) Petitioner’s Tax Court Rule 50(c) Statement             
          In Support Of Petitioner’s Motion To Remove Small Tax Case                  
          Designation, (2) Petitioner’s Tax Court Rule 50(c) Statement In             

               9  At the hearing, the Court denied respondent’s oral motion           
          to dismiss this case for lack of prosecution.                               

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