- 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 per unpublished order 986 F.2d 1427 (10th Cir., Feb. 23, 1993).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 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011