- 8 - In an order dated June 29, 1999, the Court changed petitioners' address on its records to the Apple Valley address, ordered petitioners, on or before July 30, 1999, to file written responses to respondent's May 3, 1999, motion for summary judgment and respondent's June 14, 1999, motion to dismiss, and ordered that there be served on petitioners by both certified mail and first class mail copies of that order, the Court's orders of March 23 and May 4, 1999, respondent's Third Request for Admissions, respondent's May 3, 1999, motion for summary judgment, and respondent's June 14, 1999, motion to dismiss. The Court received no return mail of its order of June 29, 1999, and petitioners have filed no response thereto. Nor have petitioners otherwise filed any document or made any other attempt to get in touch with the Court since filing their last response to respondent's prior motion for partial summary judgment that the Court, in Anderson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-253, found to be the culmination of a pattern of making frivolous and groundless arguments that prompted the Court to decide to impose the $10,000 penalty described and explained in that opinion. Discussion Issue 1. Dismissal v. Summary Judgment This Court, like every court, has the inherent power, in the exercise of its discretion, to dismiss a case for want of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-632 (1962)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011