- 14 - has the burden of proof, this Court should default him.” Id. at 1408. As stated in Bosurgi: To hold a trial in a case abandoned by the taxpayer is at best an indulgence of archaic manners and at worst an insult to the taxpayers who have a rightful claim on this Court’s time. * * * Entry of a default judgment is appropriate upon a determination in the sound judicial discretion of the Court that the pleadings of the moving party set forth facts sufficient to support the judgment. [Id.; fn. ref. omitted.] See also Smith v. Commissioner, 926 F.2d 1470 (6th Cir. 1991), affg. 91 T.C. 1049 (1988). We find that by failing to appear at trial and by violating the standing pretrial order and numerous discovery orders, petitioner failed to proceed as provided by our Rules and as required by this Court. Therefore, we find petitioner in default as to the issues for which respondent bears the burden of proof. Nonetheless, since respondent bears the burden of proof with respect to the increased deficiencies and the burden of production and/or proof with respect to the additions to tax, we must determine whether respondent has satisfied these requirements. 1. Liability for Increased Deficiencies. Respondent moves to increase the deficiencies for each of the years in issue. Section 6214(a) provides: SEC. 6214(a). Jurisdiction as to Increase of Deficiency, Additional Amounts, or Additions to the Tax.-- Except as provided by section 7463, the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011