- 20 -
case. See Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan Association v. Richards &
Associates, supra at 93. Petitioner's failure to comply with
this Court's order doubtless significantly impeded respondent's
preparations for a proper trial.
Third, we think that the sanction of dismissal is warranted
not merely to prevent prejudice to respondent, but also to deter
those who might be tempted, in the future, to engage in similar
conduct. See National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club,
Inc., 427 U.S. at 643. Petitioner's actions, if left unchecked,
would undermine the Court's ability to control the litigation
before it.
Finally, we have considered whether, under these
circumstances, alternative sanctions of a nature less severe than
dismissal are appropriate. We do not believe that they are.
Petitioner's intractability makes it unlikely that imposing any
lesser sanction would alter his behavior. See Harper v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 533, 542 (1992) (Rule 123(b)). Moreover,
any lesser sanction would require the Court to set this matter
once again for trial and would, in effect, grant petitioner a
continuance, which, at the calendar call on May 19, 1977, we
expressly stated we would not permit. Such a result would reward
petitioner for his recalcitrance and obduracy. Furthermore,
respondent's position on the substantive issue in this case is
that disallowed Partnership losses necessitate corresponding
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