- 7 -
On January 15, 2003, Jacobs wrote to respondent on behalf of
the trusts to request that respondent identify taxing statutes
and that respondent provide delegation orders showing that the
notices of deficiency and notices of determination were issued by
persons authorized to do so.
On February 5, 2003, respondent again warned Jacobs that the
Court could impose sanctions under section 6673.
Respondent filed motions for summary judgment and to impose
a penalty under section 6673. The Court ordered the trusts to
file responses to respondent’s motions, but they did not do so.
No one representing any of the trusts in these cases appeared for
trial. Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of prosecution when
these cases were called for trial.
Discussion
The trusts bear the burden of proof on all issues.6
A. Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution
The Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a
decision against the taxpayer for lack of prosecution or for
other cause which the Court deems sufficient. Rule 123(b).
Dismissal of a case is a sanction resting in the discretion of
the trial court. Levy v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 794, 803 (1986).
6 The trusts do not claim that sec. 7491 applies in these
cases, nor have they introduced in these proceedings credible
evidence on any factual issue. Sec. 7491(a)(1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011