- 8 -
A taxpayer’s failure to proceed as required by the Court’s Rules,
unexcused failure to appear at a trial, and failure to
participate in any meaningful way in the resolution of the case
can result in a dismissal of the action against him or her for
lack of prosecution. Long v. Commissioner, 742 F.2d 1141, 1142-
1143 (8th Cir. 1984); Hart v. Commissioner, 730 F.2d 1206, 1208
(8th Cir. 1984); Brooks v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 413 (1984),
affd. without published opinion 772 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1985);
Freedson v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 931 (1977), affd. 565 F.2d 954
(5th Cir. 1978); Pleier v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-360,
affd. without published opinion 911 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1990). A
taxpayer’s unexcused failure to appear at trial may be grounds to
dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. Rule 149(a).
The trusts did not file meaningful responses to respondent’s
request for admissions and did not file responses to respondent’s
motions for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under
section 6673. No one appeared for trial on behalf of the trusts.
The trusts did not submit a trial memorandum as required by the
Court’s Standing Pre-Trial Order or request a continuance. In
view of the unexcused failure to appear at trial and the trusts’
failure to participate meaningfully in the resolution of these
cases, we will grant respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of
prosecution. Rules 123(b), 149(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011