- 15 -
respondent against Dr. Trowbridge for the years 1991 through
1993, and (2) that Ms. Martin be held in default with respect to,
and that a decision be entered in respondent’s favor in the full
amount of, the deficiencies in tax determined by respondent
against Ms. Martin for the years 1991 through 1995. Petitioners
object, respectively, to those motions (collectively, the default
motions).4
In pertinent part, Rule 123(a) provides:
(a) Default: If any party has failed to plead or
otherwise proceed as provided by these Rules or as
required by the Court, then such party may be held in
default by the Court either on motion of another party
or on the initiative of the Court. Thereafter, the
Court may enter a decision against the defaulting
party, upon such terms and conditions as the Court may
deem proper * * *
Respondent argues that petitioners’ failures to appear for
the call of these cases on December 3, 2001, and at the trial of
the cases on December 4, 2001, constitute defaults and that it is
appropriate for the Court to enter default judgments against each
with respect to the deficiencies and additions to tax that are
the subject of the default motions.
4 Although petitioners failed to appear at the hearing on
the default motions, they did submit a document to the Court that
day styled “Mandatory Judicial Notice of Petitioner’s Refusal for
Cause of Respondent’s Motion for Default Judgment”, which we
filed in each case as an objection to the respective default
motions.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011