-10-
this Court (failure to comply with subpoena duces tecum or to
settle or enter into meaningful stipulation of facts); Harper v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 533, 540 (1992) (failure to comply with
discovery requests and orders or to prepare for trial); Levy v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 794, 803 (1986) (failure to stipulate facts
or to prepare for trial).
The legal standard for involuntary dismissals under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) governs dismissals in the Tax Court
under our Rule 123(b). Hillig v. Commissioner, 916 F.2d 171, 173
(4th Cir. 1990), vacating and remanding on this ground T.C. Memo.
1989-476; Freedson v. Commissioner, 565 F.2d 954, 954-955 (5th
Cir. 1978), affg. 67 T.C. 931 (1977) and 65 T.C. 333 (1975);
Harper v. Commissioner, supra at 540; Explanatory Note to Rule
123(b), 60 T.C. 1129-1130.
We have dismissed, for failure properly to prosecute, the
cases of taxpayers who made tax protester1 arguments that we
found frivolous. McCoy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 1027, 1030
(1981), affd. 696 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1983) (tax protester
arguments, but also failure to respond to interrogatories and to
produce requested documents). Cf. May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d
1301, 1303-1304 (8th Cir. 1985), affg. an Order of this Court
(tax protester arguments, including denial that wages are income;
dismissal for failure to state a claim). However, in Mathes v.
1Petitioner, like the taxpayer in Santangelo v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-468, denies that he is a tax
protester.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011