- 7 -
expenses that might offset gross income; and (3) he is liable for
self-employment tax.
Also prior to trial, respondent filed a Motion to Compel
Production of Documents. The motion was based on a Request for
Production of Documents previously served on petitioner and with
which petitioner had not complied.5 The Court granted
respondent's motion to compel and ordered petitioner to produce,
by a date certain, those documents requested in respondent's
request for production. The Court also advised petitioner as
follows:
in the event petitioner does not fully comply with the
provisions of this Order, the Court will be inclined to
impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 104, Tax Court Rules
of Practice and Procedure, which may include dismissal
of this case and entry of a decision against
petitioner.
The Court also reminded petitioner of the applicability of the
Court's Standing Pre-trial Order that had previously been served
on him.
Petitioner did not comply with the Court's aforementioned
Order.
Developments at Trial
5 Before serving formal discovery on petitioner, respondent
had attempted to schedule a Branerton conference with petitioner
as required by Rule 70(a)(1). See Branerton v. Commissioner, 61
T.C. 691 (1974). At that time, respondent identified arguments
made in the petition that were frivolous, advised petitioner of
the provisions of sec. 6673, and enclosed copies of two recent
cases in which the Court had imposed a penalty against the
taxpayers pursuant to that section. Petitioner declined
respondent's invitation to participate in a Branerton conference.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011