- 2 -
$9,508 and $8,762, respectively. We granted respondent’s motion
to dismiss for lack of prosecution as to the deficiencies after
petitioner failed to appear at trial or respond to our order
requesting a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss. The
issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable for fraud
penalties under section 6663(a) for the years at issue. We also
consider whether we should impose a penalty under section
6673(a)(1).
On August 31, 2001, petitioner filed an imperfect petition
with this Court and requested a copy of the Court’s Rules for
filing a formal petition.2 Over 5 months later, after two
extensions of time to file, petitioner filed an amended petition
on February 19, 2002, in conformance with this Court’s Rules.
On November 1, 2002, petitioner was served with a notice
setting his case for trial on April 7, 2003, and stating: “YOUR
FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND ENTRY
OF DECISION AGAINST YOU.” Included in the notice was the Court’s
standing pretrial order, which states: “Continuances will be
granted only in exceptional circumstances.” The notice further
called the parties’ attention to the Court’s requirements for
1(...continued)
issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
2 At the time of the filing, petitioner resided in Winona
Lake, Indiana.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011