Richards Asset Management Trust, et al. - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          sponse to respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution            
          and to impose sanctions under section 6673 in the case at docket            
          No. 10766-00.7  Each of those respective responses contained                
          arguments and contentions that the Court found in an Order dated            
          January 18, 2002 (January 18, 2002 Order) in the cases at docket            
          Nos. 10764-00 and 10766-00 to be frivolous and/or groundless.  In           
          the January 18, 2002 Order, the Court reminded each petitioner              
          about section 6673(a)(1).8                                                  

               7On Feb. 19, 2002, Richards Charitable Trust filed a re-               
          sponse to respondent’s motion to hold petitioner in default in              
          the case at docket No. 10767-00.  Although the Court did not                
          receive and have that response filed until Feb. 19, 2002, it                
          appears to have been mailed to the Court around Nov. 20, 2001.              
          Presumably because of the delays in mail delivery that the Court            
          has been experiencing since mid-October 2001, the Court’s receipt           
          of that response was delayed.                                               
               8Sec. 6673(a)(1) states:                                               
               SEC. 6673.  SANCTIONS AND COSTS AWARDED BY COURTS.                     
                    (a) Tax Court Proceedings.--                                      
                         (1) Procedures instituted primarily for de-                  
                    lay, etc.--Whenever it appears to the Tax Court                   
                              (A) proceedings before it have been                     
                         instituted or maintained by the taxpayer                     
                         primarily for delay,                                         
                              (B) the taxpayer’s position in such                     
                         proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or                    
                              (C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to                 
                         pursue available administrative remedies,                    
                    the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the                   

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011