- 7 -
Francisco, California. Due to petitioners’ failure to appear, we
orally dismissed the case for lack of prosecution as to
petitioners' liability for the income tax deficiencies, and
respondent’s motion for a section 6673 penalty was taken under
advisement. On November 24, 2000, petitioners filed a document
with the Court continuing to make protester type arguments.
Based upon those types of arguments, petitioners asserted that
they were not liable for any taxes, respondent had not proven
that they owed any taxes, and this Court, in any event, lacked
jurisdiction with regard to the dispute.
Discussion
Rule 123(b) provides that the Court may dismiss a case at
any time and enter a decision against a petitioner if he fails to
properly prosecute his case or to comply with the Rules or any
order of the Court. Rule 123(b) generally applies in situations
where a petitioner bears the burden of proof; see also Rule
142(a) (providing that the burden of proof is on a petitioner
unless otherwise provided by statute or determined by the Court);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
We note that when this case was called for trial, respondent
represented that the examination in the instant case commenced
after the effective date of section 7491. See Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring & Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 1998), Pub. L.
105-206, sec. 3001(c), 112 Stat. 685, 727 (providing that sec.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011