- 3 -
Internal Revenue Code (the Code) required him to file income tax
returns for 1996 and 1997. Petitioner, however, claimed not to
be bound by the Code. Petitioner also asserted that he was not
subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner claimed
that during the years in issue he was not a resident of the
District of Columbia, and the Code applies only to residents of
the District of Columbia. Petitioner refused to discuss his
income and expenses for the years in issue.
By notice dated August 30, 2000, the Court set this case for
trial at the Court’s Dallas, Texas, session beginning February 5,
2001. This notice specifically stated: “YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR
MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND ENTRY OF DECISION AGAINST
YOU.” Although our standing pretrial order required petitioner
to submit a trial memorandum, he never did so.
On January 31, 2001, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss
the case on account of newly discovered evidence. We denied
petitioner’s motion.
On February 12, 2001, this case was called at the Court’s
trial calendar in Dallas, Texas. Petitioner did not appear. At
that time, respondent filed the motion to dismiss for lack of
prosecution pursuant to Rule 123(b).
Discussion
I. Rule 123(b). Dismissal
The Court may dismiss a case and enter a decision against a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011