- 10 -
dent’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.8 The record in
this case does not contain any valid reason why the Court should
not dismiss this case for lack of prosecution.
We turn now to the trial in this case that the Court held at
respondent’s request on the increased deficiency for 1998 alleged
in respondent’s amendment to answer on which respondent has the
burden of proof. Neither petitioner nor any authorized represen-
tative of petitioner appeared at that trial. Respondent appeared
and established at the trial that during 1998 petitioner received
$16,679.62 in wages from Spartanburg Medical Center. On the
record before us, we find that respondent has carried respon-
dent’s burden of proof with respect to the increased deficiency
of $1,459 with respect to those wages alleged in respondent’s
amendment to answer.
Based on our examination of the entire record before us, we
shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss this case for failure
by petitioner to prosecute, and we shall enter a decision sus-
taining the deficiency determination of $911 in the notice,
increased by $1,459 as alleged in respondent’s answer to amend-
ment.9
8Nor did petitioner or any authorized representative of
petitioner appear on Oct. 7, 2002, at the calendar call.
9In an appendix to respondent’s brief, respondent states
that “A federal withholding credit in the amount of $1,460 will
be applied against the deficiency” for petitioner’s taxable year
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011