- 13 -
had yet been assigned to the case. Ace transmitted this
information to Moffatt. Moffatt asked Ace if he could get
litigation costs if he settled with the Appeals Office. Ace told
him that she did not think so, but that she would find out.
On May 14, 2004, Ace, having evaluated the materials,
concluded that respondent should concede the earned income credit
issue.
On May 17, 2004, the case was called at the calendar call
for the Court’s trial session to deal with petitioner’s motion in
limine. Respondent was represented by Nguyen Hoang (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as Hoang), and petitioner was represented
by Moffatt. Hoang stated that the purpose of petitioner’s motion
in limine could best be achieved during the stipulation process,
which would follow the appeals process. Moffatt stated that he
had subpoenaed 10 government employees to come to the hearing on
the motion, in order to authenticate the documents and support
the documents’ admissibility. Moffatt stated that “if the motion
is heard, and the witnesses are allowed to testify, I think the
case will not need to go further in trial. I think it will be
settled by summary judgment.” The Court directed counsel to
meet, discuss the documents, and report back.
About 1-1/2 hours later, the case was recalled. Hoang
agreed to stipulate all the documents in petitioner’s motion in
limine, as follows:
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011