- 4 -
December 1992, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (the show
cause order) directing petitioner, and all other nonsettling
partners of Computer Graphics, to show cause why the partnership
proceeding should not be dismissed for failure to properly
prosecute. The preamble of the show cause order stated as
follows:
pursuant to our order * * *, respondent provided the
Court with a list of the names and addresses of all
nonparticipating partners in the above partnership who
have not entered into settlement agreements and will
therefore be affected by the outcome of this case.
In order to protect the interests of these
partners with respect to their right to be informed
both about these proceedings in general, the existence
of settlement offers, and the existence of pending
motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, respondent
asked the Court to designate a new tax matters partner
(TMP) pursuant to Tax Court Rule 250(b). However,
respondent was unable to suggest the name of any
partner to serve as TMP inasmuch as respondent has
settled with all participating partners, and the
remaining partners to whom this order is addressed have
not answered their letters from respondent. Mail
addressed to the existing TMP is being returned and his
whereabouts are no longer known.
A copy of the show cause order was served on petitioner at
his Irish Lane address. Petitioner did not respond to the show
cause order.
On June 10, 1993, the Court entered an Order and Order of
Dismissal and Decision (the final order) in the partnership
proceeding. The final order dismissed the partnership proceeding
and sustained respondent's adjustments as determined in the FPAA.
Further, the final order revealed that, as of June 10, 1993, all
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011