- 11 -
relation to the rejected Fifth Amendment claims by Johnson. He
again admitted fault in failing to answer interrogatory No. 38.
He stated:
I’d like it established how much of this work has to do
with the Fifth Amendment and other impermissible
concerns, and how much of it has to do with the
Washington, D.C., hearing. If I pay for the
Washington, D.C., hearing, that’s 4-, $5,000. If I’m
at fault for that, I’ll pay that. I mean, that’s the
position that I’m taking.
* * * * * * *
* * * I think I have made a mistake, based on what you
have said, and I always believe somebody should own up
and pay for their mistakes, whatever they are, whether
it’s paying interest or whatever.
Although respondent’s counsel conceded amounts of fees incurred
on dates prior to October 25, 1999, the parties were unable to
reach agreement as to the amount of fees to be ordered.
Discussion
Petitioners never fully complied with the outstanding
discovery orders, were not prepared for trial, and Johnson
indicated through Izen that she wanted to withdraw her petition.
The petitions cannot be “withdrawn” without decisions against
petitioners. See sec. 7459(d); Estate of Ming v. Commissioner,
62 T.C. 519 (1974). Dismissal for failure to prosecute, as
sought by respondent’s motions, is appropriate. See Rules
104(c)(3), 123(b), 149. Respondent’s motion with respect to
Johnson seeks determination of deficiencies in amounts that have
been adjusted downward from the notice of deficiency due to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011