- 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