- 7 -
to $25,000 pursuant to section 6673. Respondent also provided a
copy of Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 519 (1974), and
again requested that petitioners assist in the preparation of
this case for trial.
Respondent received a September 10, 1994, letter from
petitioner in which petitioner acknowledged receipt of
respondent's September 2, 1994, letter. Once again, petitioner
alluded to his ARR.
On September 14, 1994, respondent timely served a copy of
respondent's trial memorandum on petitioners. Petitioners failed
to timely submit a trial memorandum as required by the Court's
Standing Pre-Trial Order.
On October 4, 1994, petitioners failed to appear for the
scheduled trial of this case. Respondent entered an appearance
and filed the two motions currently before us.
Motion to Dismiss
With respect to respondent's motion to dismiss, Rules 123(b)
and 149(a) provide as follows:
Rule 123. *** Dismissal
* * * * * * *
(b) Dismissal: For failure of a petitioner properly
to prosecute or to comply with these Rules or any order
of the Court or for other cause which the Court deems
sufficient, the Court may dismiss a case at any time
and enter a decision against the petitioner. The Court
may, for similar reasons, decide against any party any
issue as to which such party has the burden of proof,
and such decision shall be treated as a dismissal for
purposes of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this Rule.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011