- 13 -
petitioners' course of conduct in asserting frivolous and
groundless arguments.
Following issuance of that opinion and the order that
accompanied it, petitioners have gone to ground and have not been
heard from since. They have not responded to respondent's Third
Request for Admissions or to either of respondent's motions.
This has been in the face of the Court's repeated orders to
respond to respondent's filings and to the Court's order to
furnish their current address. Petitioners' failures to notify
the Court of their changes of address are in violation of the Tax
Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure, see Rule 34(b)(7), and
the Court's order of March 23, 1999. Petitioners did not appear
at the call of the calendar for their case at the June 7, 1999,
commencement of the Court's San Diego trial session.
In contrast to petitioners' affirmative misconduct during
the first phase of this case, leading to the Court's prior
opinion and accompanying order, petitioners thereafter, during
the second phase of this case, have been guilty of nonfeasance--
passive inactivity--that has nevertheless required the
expenditure of administrative and judicial resources to dispose
of the case. These costs would not have been incurred if
petitioners had simply conceded the remaining issues and signed a
decision document that respondent would have been happy to
prepare. On the other hand, if petitioners had provided
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011