Herbst Asset Mgmt. Trust, et al. - Page 17




                                       - 17 -                                         
          accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for 1996 and               
          1997 that respondent determined against Ms. Herbst in the case at           
          docket No. 10001-00, and (4) the accuracy-related penalties under           
          section 6662(a) for 1996 and 1997 that respondent determined                
          against Mr. Herbst in the case at docket No. 10002-00.                      
               At the trial in these cases on October 15, 2001, there was             
          no appearance by or on behalf of Herbst Management Trust, Herbst            
          Charitable Trust, Ms. Herbst, and Mr. Herbst.                               
               At the conclusion of the trial in these cases on October 15,           
          2001, the Court orally ordered respondent to file on or before              
          November 2, 2001, a written motion to dismiss for lack of prose-            
          cution in each of these cases.  Thereafter, the Court granted               
          respondent’s motion to extend the time within which to file each            
          such motion.  By Order dated October 15, 2001 (October 15, 2001             
          Order), the Court ordered the parties in these cases to file                
          simultaneous opening briefs on or before November 29, 2001.                 
               On November 13, 2001, respondent timely filed a written                
          motion to hold petitioner in default in each of the cases at                
          docket Nos. 9999-00 and 10000-00 and a written motion to dismiss            
          for lack of prosecution and to impose sanctions under section               
          6673 in each of the cases at docket Nos. 10001-00 and 10002-00.             
          (For convenience, we shall refer to each of the latter two                  
          motions as respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecu-              
          tion.)                                                                      






Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011