- 6 -
indeed, received this Court's order calendaring for a hearing
respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. On July
5, 1994, respondent sent petitioners a letter reminding them of
the hearing and again requesting the needed substantiation
documents. Petitioner promised, yet again, to mail the necessary
documentation. No documents were received by the date of the
hearing on respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to properly
prosecute.
Discussion
In light of the record in this case, the Court finds that
petitioners have clearly indicated by their conduct and the
overall record in this case that they no longer wish to contest
any issue involved in this case. Petitioners have the burden of
proof as to the deficiencies and additions to tax at issue.
It is well established that this Court can dismiss a case
against a party if that party fails to follow our Rules or
otherwise fails to properly prosecute his or her case. Ducommun
v. Commissioner, 732 F.2d 752 (10th Cir. 1983). Rule 123(b)
provides for the dismissal of a case when a taxpayer fails to
prosecute his or her case, fails to comply with the Court's Rules
or any order of the Court, or for any cause which the Court deems
sufficient. Smith v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1049 (1988), affd.
926 F.2d 1470 (6th Cir. 1991); Basic Bible Church v. Commis-
sioner, 86 T.C. 110, 112 (1986). Dismissal of a case is a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011