Julie K. McCammon - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
               on August 18, 2004, November 3, 2004, and January 19,                  
               2005, for the taxable years 2000, 2001, and 2002,                      
               respectively.  Petitioner filed her amended petitions                  
               on December 1, 2004, February 16, 2005, and May 9,                     
               2005, for the taxable years 2000, 2001, and 2002,                      
               respectively, alleging that she had business expenses.                 
               Petitioner has not made available to respondent any                    
               records regarding any business expenses during the two                 
               year period that has elapsed since respondent’s first                  
               notice of deficiency.                                                  
          *      *      *      *      *      *                                        
                    4.  Petitioner alleges respondent has been unfair,                
               demanding, and unreasonable when petitioner requests                   
               settlement, when in fact, petitioner has made no                       
               attempt to resolve her cases, has cancelled all                        
               conferences scheduled by respondent, and has failed to                 
               provide respondent with any evidence whatsoever                        
               regarding her alleged expenses, despite respondent’s                   
               repeated invitations to do so.  Petitioner failed to                   
               comply with this Court’s order of June 6, 2006 to meet                 
               and provide such business expenses.                                    
          Petitioner’s motion for continuance was denied, in part because             
          the Court conducts sessions in Charleston, West Virginia, only              
          once a year.  There was no justification for postponing trial for           
          a year in the absence of any assurance that petitioner would make           
          an effort to cooperate in the determination of her tax                      
          liabilities.                                                                
               On September 7, 2006, petitioner filed a motion to recuse,             
          alleging that the judge to whom the cases had been assigned had a           
          personal bias and prejudice against petitioner as a pro se                  
          litigant.  That motion was denied.  The Court had twice, in the             
          order of June 6, 2006, and the letter of July 27, 2006, made                
          special efforts to notify petitioner of what was required of her.           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011