- 3 -
$10,980.14, and for a civil fraud penalty under section 6663(a).1
Respondent alleged in the motion that the reasons for the
increased deficiency and the civil fraud penalty were not evident
when he filed his answer to the amended petition. Respondent
further alleged that petitioner had received fair warning of
respondent’s intention to amend his answer and that petitioner
had ample time to prepare for trial under the circumstances.
By order dated April 26, 2005, we directed petitioner to
file a response to respondent’s motion on or before May 10, 2005.
No response was received by the deadline, so we granted
respondent’s motion and filed respondent’s amendment to answer on
May 19, 2005.
On June 1, 2005, we held a conference call with the parties
to discuss petitioner’s request for a continuance and
respondent’s request for a date and time certain for the trial.
Respondent objected to the continuance on a variety of grounds
including petitioner’s failure to document a compelling medical
reason for the request and his continuing failure to cooperate in
preparing the case for trial. We denied petitioner’s request
without prejudice to petitioner’s right to renew the request if
petitioner could document a compelling reason for another
continuance.
1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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