- 9 -
the Court reminded petitioner about the Court’s September 5, 2002
Order, in which the Court had indicated that it would be inclined
to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 on her pursuant to
section 6673(a)(1) if she continued to make frivolous and/or
groundless statements, contentions, and/or arguments.
Discussion
We turn first to respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of
prosecution. It is respondent’s position that petitioner has the
burden of proof on the determinations in the notice which that
motion addresses because petitioner failed to cooperate with
respondent in the preparation of this case for trial. Petitioner
does not dispute respondent’s position. On the record before us,
we agree with respondent that petitioner bears the burden of
proof with respect to the determinations in the notice. See sec.
7491(a)(1) and (2)(B).
Neither petitioner nor any authorized representative of
petitioner appeared at the hearing on October 9, 2002, on respon-
7(...continued)
2 and 21 of the Internal Revenue Code in States of the
Union? (26 U.S.C. � 7701(a)(1)(A))
5. What order, agreement, contract or other such legal
document or device does the Internal Revenue Service
have that authorizes examination and collection activ-
ity on behalf of the “delegate” of the Secretary, as
defined at 26 U.S.C. � 7701(a)(12)(A), in States of the
Union? See �� 1001(b)(2) of P.L. 105-206.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011