- 11 -
of petitioner’s returns began, petitioner has failed to present
any evidence and so could not qualify for the protections of
section 7491. Accordingly, petitioner here bears the burden of
proving that respondent’s deficiency determinations are in error.
As regards the two pertinent policy considerations
identified above, we are equally satisfied that the balance
weighs strongly against petitioner. In the many months that have
passed since his petition was filed, petitioner has been
uncommunicative, uncooperative, and has otherwise failed to make
any meaningful efforts whatsoever to prepare his case for trial.
He has acted in contravention of our standing pretrial order, has
refused to engage in informal discovery, has ignored orders
directing formal discovery, has stipulated no facts, has failed
to submit a trial memorandum, and has appeared before the Court
on the day of trial completely unprepared to proceed. Hence,
while it is true that petitioner will suffer the detriment of not
being heard on the merits of his case, he has given us no reason
to believe that he is inclined to prepare for doing so at any
time in the foreseeable future. In contrast, respondent has
already expended significant effort in attempting to bring this
matter to resolution. We therefore must conclude, given the
pattern of petitioner’s behavior and the unlikelihood of
impending improvement, that further delay and the harassment
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011