- 13 -
Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that petitioner has
had sufficient experience with this and other courts to know that
he would be receiving important mailings pertaining to this case
and that he must contact the Court and respondent to give notice
of his address change. Instead, petitioner waited until this
case was called for trial to allege that he had not received the
Court's or respondent's notices. Petitioner then deliberately
misstated his legal experience in an apparent attempt to persuade
the Court to show leniency by vacating the deemed admissions
based upon his assertion that he had not received the Court's or
respondent's notices.
Had the Court known the extent of petitioner's legal
experience at the time of the call of this case from the
calendar, the Court would have held petitioner to the deemed
admissions when he appeared at that time. A continuance and
hearing would not have been necessary. In short, by deliberately
misstating his experience before this Court, petitioner abused
the Court's processes and caused undue delay. Petitioner's
unacceptable conduct in the instant case resulted in an
unnecessary and considerable waste of the Court's time and
resources. Accordingly, the maximum penalty is appropriate, and
we therefore, on our own motion, require petitioner to pay to the
United States a penalty in the amount of $25,000. See sec.
6673(a)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011