- 11 -
at a minimum we would have expected Mr. Luca to provide us with
copies of correspondence to authorities allegedly in possession
of his business records. Instead, Mr. Luca failed to file the
required status report, and we have no indication that Mr. Luca
has undertaken any efforts to obtain the documentation necessary
to support his case. In addition, Mr. Luca failed to comply with
our order that he respond to the motion to dismiss presently
before us.
While a taxpayer has an interest in having his or her case
heard on the merits, the Commissioner has the right to obtain
judicial resolution of tax disputes within a reasonable period of
time. See Freedson v. Commissioner, supra at 935. As this case
heads into its fourth year before the Court, respondent’s
interest in obtaining a resolution of the tax liabilities at
issue becomes increasingly compelling.
In balancing the interests of Mr. Luca against those of
respondent, we find that the considerations in this case favor
respondent. Simply put, Mr. Luca has not provided the Court with
any indication that he intends to move this case forward in the
foreseeable future. The remedy of dismissal is admittedly harsh,
but we see no alternative that will adequately protect the
interests of respondent. “Although a court must explore
meaningful alternatives prior to dismissing a case, it need not
always exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before final
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011