- 15 -
In this case, we could hold petitioners in default,
pursuant to Rule 123(a) and dismiss the case for their
failure to respond to orders of the Court and for their
failure to file briefs under Rule 151. See Stringer v.
Commissioner, 84 T.C. 693 706-708 (1985), affd. without
published opinion 789 F.2d 917 (4th Cir. 1986). We could
also assume that, after trial, petitioners concluded that
their petition was not meritorious and they abandoned their
claims. See Calcutt v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 716, 721-722
(1985). In that event, we would not dismiss the case by
reason of petitioners' failure to comply with the Court's
orders and Rules, but we would decide the case against
petitioners by reason of their failure to satisfy their
burden of proof. See id. On either theory the result is
the same. We must sustain the adjustments determined in
the notice of deficiency.
On the basis of the history of this case, including
petitioners' failure or refusal to provide the Court with
a statement of the issues for decision, we find that the
proceedings have been instituted or maintained by
petitioners primarily for delay and that petitioners'
position in the proceeding is frivolous or groundless.
Accordingly, we will require petitioners to pay to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011