- 11 -
have failed to contact the Court to determine the status of that
hearing. We find that these failures were due to petitioners’
willfulness, bad faith, or fault. We shall therefore grant
respondent’s Motion to Dismiss For Failure Properly to Prosecute.
Decision will be entered for respondent, taking into account
respondent’s concessions, supra, n.7.
B. Sanction Under Section 6673
Respondent filed a motion to impose a penalty against
petitioners under section 6673. This Court may impose a penalty
up to $25,000 when proceedings have been instituted or maintained
primarily for delay, where the taxpayer’s position is frivolous
or groundless, or where the taxpayer unreasonably fails to pursue
available administrative remedies. Sec. 6673(a)(1).
Respondent argues that petitioners instituted and maintained
this case primarily for the purpose of delay and that they
unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies.
We agree.
We have found that taxpayers instituted proceedings in this
Court primarily for delay where they “exhibited total disinterest
in presenting or proving the merits, if any, of their cases.”
Voss v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-238. This Court also has
held that taxpayers unreasonably failed to pursue available
administrative remedies when they failed to accept or respond to
the Commissioner’s Appeals Office invitation to discuss their
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011