Richard L. Clark - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          the information that respondent needed.  Moreover, the                      
          interrogatories apparently motivated petitioner to give evasive             
          answers to respondent’s poorly phrased requests for admissions              
          and to refuse to admit to the items of income identified in the             
          statutory notice and in the requests for admissions.  Thus,                 
          respondent’s motions to compel answers to interrogatories and to            
          review the sufficiency of the responses to the requests for                 
          admissions were denied.                                                     
               In an order served on the parties approximately 5 weeks                
          before trial, they were warned:                                             
                    Nonetheless, the parties are required to stipulate                
               pursuant to Rule 91 and to do so with respect to the                   
               items of income and deductions involved in this case.                  
               Petitioner is advised that respondent’s determination                  
               of income, once supported by third-party information,                  
               will be sustained unless he raises a reasonable dispute                
               with respect to those items of income.  He has not done                
               so on the record in this case to date.  Petitioner                     
               bears the burden of proof with respect to his                          
               exemptions and deductions, and he should produce                       
               documents relating to those claims in accordance with                  
               the Court’s Order dated March 1, 2007.  With respect to                
               petitioner’s claims that he need not answer questions                  
               about failing to file returns, relying on his privilege                
               against self-incrimination, petitioner is advised that                 
               the privilege is a shield, not a sword, and his refusal                
               to answer questions and provide information will be                    
               detrimental to him in this case.  Respondent, through                  
               official transcripts and through means of securing                     
               third-party evidence, presumably will establish the                    
               facts necessary to respondent’s case, and petitioner                   
               must establish the facts necessary to his positions.                   
               * * *                                                                  
          Petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s order to produce               
          documents.  That failure became moot, however, because petitioner           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007