- 30 -
Richards I granting respondent’s respective motions to dismiss
for lack of prosecution in the cases at docket Nos. 10765-00 and
10766-00 and imposing a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) on Mr.
Richards in those cases in the respective amounts of $8,000 and
$18,000. The crux of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration
regarding all of those holdings is petitioners’ claim that Mr.
Richards’ conduct in these cases was the result of his reliance
on Mr. Binge, his tax return preparer, and Mr. Bentivegna, an
associate of Mr. Binge. That claim rings hollow.
Not only did respondent and the Court inform petitioners in
these cases that there could be sanctions as a result of their
conduct in these cases, petitioners’ counsel Mr. Wise also
advised Mr. Richards that “reliance upon the recommendations of
James Binge may not be in his best interest.” In response to
such advice and other advice from Mr. Wise, petitioners fired
13(...continued)
Richards Charitable Trust, which Mr. Richards alleges in Mr.
Richards’ affidavit in that case “were maintained in my posses-
sion until April, 2002.” Although the trust papers attached to
Mr. Richards’ affidavit in the case at docket No. 10767-00 bear
the date Apr. 26, 1995, those papers list Mr. Richards and Joy
Ann Richards as the directors and the trustees of Richards
Charitable Trust. However, Joy Ann Richards died at an undis-
closed time prior to Aug. 15, 1997. Moreover, in that case, Mr.
Bentivegna signed as “Trustee” the response to the Court’s
December 3, 2001 Show Cause Order and the response to respon-
dent’s motion to hold petitioner in default. We conclude that
Mr. Richards’ affidavit and the trust papers attached to Mr.
Richards’ affidavit in the case at docket No. 10767-00 do not
establish who has the authority to act on behalf of Richards
Charitable Trust in that case.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011