- 7 -
overpayment. During the conference call, petitioner confirmed
that he had not retained counsel or produced any documentation to
respondent concerning his 2000 income or expenses.
On March 14, 2005, we received a document from petitioner
entitled “MOTION FOR REDETERMINATION OF ZERO”, which we filed on
that date as petitioner’s Motion for Entry of Decision. In the
motion, petitioner alleges that on February 9, 2005, he had
submitted a Federal income tax return for 2000 to respondent that
“documented petitioner’s position in discovery of W-2 errors and
correcting the record regarding said W-2 errors concluding with a
zero tax liability.” By order dated March 16, 2005, we denied
petitioner’s motion.
Discussion
The Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a
decision against the taxpayer for failure properly to prosecute
his case, failure to comply with the Rules of the Court or any
order of the Court, or for any cause that the Court deems
sufficient. Rule 123(b). Dismissal is appropriate where the
taxpayer’s failure to comply with the Court’s Rules and orders is
due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Dusha v. Commissioner,
82 T.C. 592, 599 (1984). In addition, the Court may dismiss a
case for lack of prosecution if the taxpayer inexcusably fails to
appear at trial and does not otherwise participate in the
resolution of his claim. Rule 149(a); Rollercade, Inc. v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011