- 22 -
never received from exercise of the stock options. The parties
dispute the significance of Mr. Chou’s pledge of the Cisco stock
to support a loan and use of the proceeds of the loan for
purposes other than payment of taxes. On the record in this
case, we conclude that the benefit factor neither favors nor
precludes relief.
With regard to health factors, the briefs authored by
petitioners’ counsel repeatedly assert that Mrs. Chou had
recently given birth and was caring for a newborn infant. Within
the briefs, filed in January and March 2007, the infant is at
various places described as born in “late 2000”, newborn, 6
months old, 8 months old, and 9 months old. While thus so
careless with the facts on which they rely, the briefs accuse
respondent of “inaccuracies” and “shoddy analysis”. These
arguments are unsupported, unpersuasive, and inexcusable.
The briefs frequently assert “the physical and mental
demands on the mother of a newborn infant” as a health issue and
as excusing lack of knowledge of the unpaid liability, but
nothing in the record supports that characterization. Mrs. Chou
testified that her child was born on August 1, 2000, and the
return was signed in April 2001. The extent of her testimony
with respect to the “demands” of motherhood was as follows:
Q [Mrs. Chou’s counsel] Lot of work taking care
of an infant?
A [Mrs. Chou] Yes, definitely.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007