Joseph T. McQuatters - Page 3

                                                - 3 -                                                   
                  6.  Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under section                          
            6673(a).  We hold he is and require him to pay to the United                                
            States a penalty of $1,000.                                                                 
            Background                                                                                  
                  The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony by                               
            petitioner and exhibits.  At the trial of this case, despite this                           
            Court's pretrial order that all facts be stipulated to the                                  
            maximum extent possible, petitioner refused to enter into a                                 
            stipulation of facts in this case.1                                                         
                  Petitioner, who resided in Columbia, South Carolina, when                             
            his petition was filed, did not file a Federal income tax return                            
            for the year 1988.  On March 22, 1996, respondent issued a                                  
            statutory notice of deficiency for petitioner for 1988 based upon                           
            Forms 1099 that respondent had received from Lexington State Bank                           
            and Masterguard Corp. (Masterguard) reporting income paid to                                
            petitioner during 1988.  The Form 1099 from Lexington State Bank                            
            reported interest paid to petitioner in the amount of $128 for                              

            1     On May 15, 1997, respondent submitted a supplemental motion                           
            to reopen the record in this case for the limited purpose of                                
            receiving into evidence newly discovered evidence.  We deny                                 
            respondent's motion because it is the policy of this Court to try                           
            all the issues raised in a case in one proceeding to avoid                                  
            piecemeal and protracted litigation.  Markwardt v. Commissioner,                            
            64 T.C. 989, 998 (1975); Haft Trust v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 145,                           
            147 (1974).                                                                                 
                  At trial, respondent orally moved for dismissal on the                                
            ground that petitioner had failed properly to prosecute this case                           
            by failing to address the merits of the case and by refusing to                             
            stipulate facts as required by the Court's pretrial order.  We                              
            decide the case for respondent on the merits, and respondent's                              
            oral motion is denied as moot.                                                              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011