- 17 -
proposed stipulation of facts “seems to mimic my past Motions In
Limine”. However, he brought up the following items: (1) He
wanted respondent to agree to stipulate without reserved
relevance objection (a) Ace’s case activity record13 and (b) a
June 21, 2004, response to a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)
request he had made; (2) he wanted to take Ace’s deposition; (3)
he was “looking at filing a motion to transfer this case to the
U.S. Federal Court of Claims, [sic] given that the case is
essentially a refund case”; and (4) he wanted to meet with Wu and
her supervisor “to discuss these issues at my office, thereby
satisfying the Branerton requirements in Branerton Corp. v.
Commissioner, 761 [sic] T.C. 691 (1974).”
On September 8, 2004, Wu sent to Moffatt a proposed
stipulation of settled issues, agreeing that petitioner is
entitled to the claimed earned income credit and that petitioner
has made an overpayment of $2,890. On September 9, 2004, Moffatt
sent to Wu a signed stipulation of facts. In his cover letter,
Moffatt repeated most of the points raised in his August 30,
2004, letter to Wu.
On October 28, 2004, Wu received petitioner’s trial
memorandum. On November 26, 2004, Wu served respondent’s trial
memorandum on Moffatt. (The relevant Standing Pretrial Order
13 In connection with the instant motion, the parties have
stipulated Ace’s case activity record.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011