Robert C. Olson - Page 4

                                        - 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