- 6 -
This case was called at the Court's trial calendar in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on December 11, 1995. Petitioner did
not appear. At that time, respondent filed her motion for
default judgment pursuant to the provisions of Rule 123(a).
Discussion
Rule 123(a) provides that if any party fails to plead or
otherwise proceed as provided by the Rules or as required by the
Court, such party may be held in default on the motion of the
other party. Smith v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1049, 1056 (1988),
affd. 926 F.2d 1470 (6th Cir. 1991). The action or nonaction on
the part of a taxpayer that constitutes sufficient grounds to
apply Rule 123(a) in proceedings before us is a matter within
this Court's discretion. Id. In light of the affirmative
allegations in respondent's answer, petitioner's failure to
appear and to proceed with prosecution of his case, despite the
Court's warning in its notice setting this case for trial, its
pretrial order, and its September 29, 1995, order granting the
motion of petitioner's counsel to withdraw, constitutes
sufficient grounds for the entry of a default judgment against
him.
The entry of default under Rule 123(a) has the effect of
admitting all well-pleaded facts in the Commissioner's answer.
Id. at 1056-1058; Bosurgi v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1403, 1409
(1986). This is true even when a reply has been filed by a
taxpayer which addresses the facts pleaded by the Commissioner in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011