- 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