Marvin L. Barmes and Barbara J. Barmes - Page 12

                                       - 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                   
                  *       *       *       *       *       *       *                   
                    (3)  An order * * * dismissing the case or any                    
               part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default                       
               against the disobedient party.                                         

          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 per unpublished           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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011