Page:T.C. Memo. 2012-281.pdf/20



[*20] {| class="_tbl" !Year !! Sch. C gross receipts !! Wages/Salary expense !! Other expenses
 * 1998 || $647,045 || $42,500 ||$315,123
 * 1999 || 1,179,423 || 186,087 || 510,785
 * 2000 || 1,733,803 || 457,914 || 797,549
 * 2001 || 1,638,732 || 494,321 || 753,817
 * 2002 || 1,840,280 || 597,208 || 846,529
 * 2003 || 1,893,591 || 643,226 || 871,052
 * 2004 || 2,112,794 || 411,662 || 971,885
 * 2005 || 2,272,682 || 411,662 || 1,045,434
 * 2006 || 1,524,494 || 411,662 || 701,267
 * }
 * 2003 || 1,893,591 || 643,226 || 871,052
 * 2004 || 2,112,794 || 411,662 || 971,885
 * 2005 || 2,272,682 || 411,662 || 1,045,434
 * 2006 || 1,524,494 || 411,662 || 701,267
 * }
 * 2005 || 2,272,682 || 411,662 || 1,045,434
 * 2006 || 1,524,494 || 411,662 || 701,267
 * }
 * }

Respondent also determined that petitioner received interest income of $707, $2,136, $2, $5, and $2 in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively.

X.

On January 15, 2010, petitioner filed a petition with this Court contesting respondent's determinations. Mr. Hovind also filed a petition with this Court contesting respondent's determinations in the separate notice of deficiency issued to him. Respondent filed motions to calendar and consolidate the two cases for trial, briefing, and opinion. On December 16, 2010, the Court issued an order directing the parties to show cause why the cases should not be calendared and consolidated. Petitioner responded to this Court's order and objected to the granting of respondent's motions. By order dated March 14, 2011, the Court denied respondent's motions to calendar and consolidate. Consequently, we set