- 3 -
(4) she should have relieved petitioner of failure-to-pay
penalties for the years in issue.
At trial petitioner’s testimony was brief, dealing mostly
with a decline in the value of her stock portfolio. She called
no witnesses, and she offered one document, which, because of
respondent’s relevance objection, we did not receive into
evidence. Respondent did not question petitioner, and he called
no witnesses of his own. We set a briefing schedule, requiring
seriatim briefs, with respondent to go first. We explained to
petitioner that, in her brief, she would be able to respond to
respondent’s brief and to raise any additional arguments she
wished to raise. Petitioner agreed that she was satisfied to
proceed that way.
Respondent filed an opening brief of 21 pages, requesting 34
proposed findings of fact and addressing petitioner’s claims as
summarized by the Court at trial. Petitioner filed an answering
brief of one page (plus cover sheet), in which she describes her
loss of employment in 1997 and the challenge, since that time, of
living on savings in a declining securities market. She states
that, in the spring of 2006, she took a large distribution from
her retirement account to pay down her credit card debt of over
$120,000. She further states that, in the spring of this year,
she took another large distribution in order to rebuild an
investment portfolio and to prepare for upcoming expenses,
including exploring employment and business opportunities and a
possible home purchase.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007