- 18 -
a partial response to a court's discovery order. See National
Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639
(1976); see also Dusha v. Commissioner, supra at 604 ("If the
standard of Societe Internationale is met * * *, token minimal
compliance will not bar the sanction of dismissal.")
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
to which the dismissal of this case would be appealable, barring
agreement to the contrary, has formulated prerequisites for
dismissal of a case under Rule 104(c)(3).
According to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a
court must consider a list of four factors: (1) Whether the
noncomplying party acted in bad faith; (2) the amount of
prejudice the noncompliance caused the adversary; (3) the need
for deterring the particular type of noncompliance; and (4) the
efficacy of less drastic sanctions. Hillig v. Commissioner, 916
F.2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990), vacating T.C. Memo. 1989-476;
Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan Association v. Richards & Associates, 872
F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989).
First, we are convinced that petitioner has acted willfully
and in bad faith by his noncompliance and misrepresentations to
the Court. Cf. Hillig v. Commissioner, supra at 174-175. Our
Rules of Practice and Procedure and our orders mean exactly what
they say, and we intend that they be heeded. Rosenfeld v.
Commissioner, supra at 111; Odend'hal v. Commissioner, 75 T.C.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011