- 9 -
THE WITNESS: My previous accountant had obtained
some information.
THE COURT: Your accountant told you that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, my previous accountant.
THE COURT: Do you wish to identify that person?
THE WITNESS: Not really.
In order to allow petitioner one further opportunity to
substantiate deductions, the Court issued an order as follows:
These cases were called for trial in Charleston,
West Virginia, on September 11, 2006, pursuant to
notice duly given. Petitioner orally moved the Court
for a continuance, which was denied for reasons
appearing in the transcript of proceedings. Petitioner
had failed to comply with the Court’s Order dated
June 5 [June 6], 2006, or the Standing Pretrial Order
served with the notice of trial. The parties did,
however, stipulate to Forms 1040 submitted by
petitioner for 2000 and 2002 and to the notices of
deficiency that are the basis of these cases.
Petitioner testified briefly with respect to the
penalties in issue, claiming reliance on an
“accountant” whom she declined to identify. Upon due
consideration and for cause, it is hereby
ORDERED: That petitioner is held in default
pursuant to Rule 123(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure, by reason of petitioner’s failure to
comply with the Court’s orders and rules or otherwise
properly to prosecute these cases. It is further
ORDERED: That the determinations of income set
forth in the statutory notices are sustained by reason
of petitioner’s failure to assert a reasonable dispute
with respect to any item of income reported on the
information returns used in respondent’s determination.
See sec. 6201(d), Internal Revenue Code. It is further
ORDERED: That, on or before December 11, 2006,
petitioner shall show cause in writing served on
respondent and filed with the Court why the within
cases should not be dismissed by reason of her failure
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