Stephen Martin Beddow - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         

                    Dismissal:  For failure of a petitioner properly                  
               to prosecute or to comply with these Rules or any order                
               of the Court or for other cause which the Court deems                  
               sufficient, the Court may dismiss a case at any time                   
               and enter a decision against the petitioner.  The Court                
               may, for similar reasons, decide against any party any                 
               issue as to which such party has the burden of proof,                  
               and such decision shall be treated as a dismissal for                  
               purposes of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this Rule.                       
          Sanction by dismissal is exercised at the discretion of the trial           
          court.  See Levy v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 794, 803 (1986).                  
          Dismissal may properly be granted where the party’s failure to              
          comply is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault.  See Dusha v.            
          Commissioner, 82 T.C. 592, 599 (1984).  A case may be dismissed             
          for failure properly to prosecute when petitioner fails to appear           
          at trial and does not otherwise proceed with the litigation of              
          his claim.  See Basic Bible Church v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 110,            
          114 (1986); Ritchie v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 126, 128-129 (1979);           
          Ulery v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-409.                                 
               Petitioner ignored most of respondent's communications and             
          failed to meet with respondent.  Petitioner disobeyed the letter            
          and spirit of the standing pretrial order and the Court's Rules,            
          failing to either participate in the stipulation process or file            
          a trial memorandum.  The only contact petitioner had with                   
          respondent was a phone call wherein he stated he was unsure                 
          whether he would proceed to trial.  Petitioner never submitted to           
          respondent any documentation in support of his position in this             
          case and took no meaningful steps towards resolving this case.              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011