- 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