- 21 -
adjustments to petitioner's income. If we were to deem that
matter established as set forth in the notice of deficiency for
purposes of this case, as contemplated by Rule 104(c)(1), then
respondent would prevail. Similarly, if we were to issue an
order refusing to allow petitioner to oppose respondent's claims
on that point, or prohibiting petitioner from introducing
evidence requested by respondent, as contemplated by Rule
104(c)(2), then respondent would also prevail. See Geodesco v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-637. Finally, we do not believe
that economic sanctions prescribed by Rule 104(c)(4) are
sufficient inasmuch as the stark prospect of dismissal and entry
of decision against petitioner has not heretofore deterred
petitioner's pertinacious conduct.
We note that, unlike Hillig v. Commissioner, supra at 174,
dismissal of this case would not unjustly penalize a blameless
client for the culpable behavior of his attorney. Moreover,
while the record therein was redolent of "sloppiness and a lack
of communication" and did not support a conclusion that the delay
was deliberate, the facts of the instant matter are irrefragably
to the contrary. Id.
In his response to our order granting respondent's motions
to compel, petitioner asserts that he could not comply with
respondent's discovery requests because all books and records of
the Partnership were held by its trustee in bankruptcy.
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