- 15 -
result in dismissal, the taxpayer only partially complied with
the orders. The Court of Appeals stated:
Numerous delays caused by the Oelzes, including their
repeated failure to provide the requested information
based on their unsupported fifth amendment claim,
required the tax court to issue at different times
three more discovery orders. None of these ever
resulted in the Commissioner’s obtaining the
information he needed. [Id. at 1163.]
In response to a petition for rehearing filed by Izen in Oelze,
the Court of Appeals stated:
The taxpayer’s continued failure to cooperate with the
Commissioner, the necessity for four orders to comply
with the Commissioner’s discovery requests, the
taxpayer’s continuous reliance on a baseless fifth
amendment claim, and the taxpayer’s last-minute attempt
to comply with the discovery order all demonstrate that
Oelze acted wilfully. Additionally, the Tax Court
issued four separate discovery orders, some explicitly
warning the taxpayer that failure to comply would
result in dismissal of the case. Though the taxpayer
finally did partially comply with one of the orders, he
did so only after repeated and total failure to supply
the Commissioner with the information he requested.
Such partial compliance under these circumstances
cannot serve to exonerate the taxpayer from willful
failure to comply with the orders of the Court. [Oelze
v. Commissioner, 726 F.2d 165, 166 (5th Cir. 1983).]
Similarly, see Watson v. Commissioner, supra; Ripley v.
Commissioner, supra.
Izen’s persistence in unproductive tactics sometimes has the
unfortunate effect of reducing the quality of practice before
this Court on both sides. In Tumlinson v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1983-92, the Court faced various procedural questions as a
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