- 8 -
Discussion
Petitioner bears the burden of proof as to the deficiency
and accuracy-related penalty at issue. See Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111 (1933); Rule 142(a).
This case has consumed the time and effort of three judges
of this Court and has been scheduled for trial on three separate
occasions and in two cities. Although petitioner has apparently
been sick, he has been able to file papers with the Court, to
write letters to respondent, and to appear at the call of the
trial session. Petitioner’s letters to respondent and to the
Court are lucid, though evasive and noncommittal. We believe he
has the capacity to retrieve his documents and to cooperate with
respondent in preparing this case for trial. For reasons of his
own, he has declined to do so for more than 2 years.
It is well established that this Court can dismiss a case
against a party if that party fails to follow our Rules or
otherwise fails to properly prosecute his or her case. See
Ducommun v. Commissioner, 732 F.2d 752, 754 (10th Cir. 1983).
Rule 123(b) provides for the dismissal of a case when a taxpayer
fails to prosecute his or her case, fails to comply with the
Court's Rules or any order of the Court, or for any cause which
the Court deems sufficient. See Smith v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
1049 (1988), affd. 926 F.2d 1470 (6th Cir. 1991); Basic Bible
Church v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 110, 112 (1986). Dismissal of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011