- 12 -
Based on our examination of the record before us, we find
that petitioners have willfully failed to comply with the October
13, 2000 Order and that they never had any intention of complying
with that Order. We further find that petitioners’ willful
flouting of the October 13, 2000 Order hampered respondent’s
ability to develop respondent’s position in this case with
respect to, inter alia, the determination in the notice to
increase petitioners’ Schedule C gross receipts for 1995.
Rule 104(c) provides that if a party fails to obey an order
of the Court with respect to the provisions of, inter alia, Rule
72 relating to production of documents and things, the Court may
make such orders as to the failure as are just. Such orders may
include, but are not limited to,
(1) An order that the matter regarding which the
order was made or any other designated facts shall be
taken to be established for the purposes of the case in
accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the
order.
* * * * * * *
(3) An order * * * dismissing the case or any
part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default
against the disobedient party.
7(...continued)
dismissal; see Coulter v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 580, 583 (1984);
Ebert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-629, affd. per unpublished
order 986 F.2d 1427 (10th Cir., Feb. 23, 1993). Of course, we
previously found on the record before us that petitioners did
have a valid claim for protection under the Fifth Amendment with
respect to the production of their personal documents. See supra
note 5; see also supra note 3.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011