- 8 -
Petitioner’s conduct shows that he instituted and/or
maintained this proceeding primarily for delay. Although
respondent attempted to engage petitioner in settlement or trial
preparation activity, petitioner was unresponsive and failed to
comply with this Court’s pretrial order and Rules. See Bagby v.
Commissioner, 102 T.C. 596, 614 (1994); Stamos v. Commissioner,
95 T.C. 624, 638 (1990), affd. without published opinion 956 F.2d
1168 (9th Cir. 1992).
More significantly, petitioner improperly interposed the
automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code to delay this Court’s
proceedings and to avoid compliance with this Court’s order to
show cause. On three occasions, petitioner interposed the
automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code by filing or purporting to
file a bankruptcy petition shortly before his Tax Court case was
scheduled for trial. The petitions into bankruptcy occurred
shortly before each scheduled trial session or date for
petitioner’s compliance with this Court’s orders. In each
instance, the trial sessions had been scheduled for at least 5
months before petitioner’s last-minute connivance causing the
delay of this Court’s proceedings. Moreover, none of
petitioner’s bankruptcy proceedings were allowed to mature. On
both occasions, petitioner closed the bankruptcy proceeding a
short time after he had filed the bankruptcy petition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011