Manuel G. Lopez - Page 18




                                               - 18 -                                                  
            penalty not in excess of $25,000 whenever it appears that                                  
            proceedings have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer                             
            primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such                                
            proceeding is frivolous or groundless.  The gravamen of                                    
            respondent’s motion is that petitioner has maintained this                                 
            proceeding primarily for delay.                                                            
                  We begin by observing that whatever is said does not reflect                         
            on the representation provided by Mr. Thomas.  In our conference                           
            calls with Mr. Thomas and respondent, it appeared that Mr. Thomas                          
            at all times was acting in a responsible and good faith fashion                            
            to bring this matter to a close either by trial or settlement.                             
            This being said, however, we are still left with a decidedly                               
            uncomfortable view of petitioner’s conduct throughout this                                 
            proceeding.                                                                                
                  Petitioner failed to file returns for the years in issue.                            
            After the case was docketed in this Court, petitioner ignored the                          
            standing pretrial order and refused to cooperate in preparing                              
            this case for trial to the extent that at the initial calendar                             
            call this case either could have been dismissed for failure to                             
            properly prosecute or continued.  We gave petitioner the benefit                           
            of doubt at that time and continued the case.  Even then, until                            
            Mr. Thomas entered an appearance, petitioner refused to obey the                           
            orders of the Court.  Mr. Thomas was successful in negotiating a                           
            settlement in which petitioner initially concurred.  On the eve                            






Page:  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