- 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