- 5 -
The Court may dismiss a case for lack of prosecution if the
taxpayer inexcusably fails to appear at trial and does not
otherwise participate in the resolution of his claim. Id.;
Rollercade, Inc. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 113, 116-117 (1991).
We conclude that petitioner has failed to comply with this
Court’s Rules and orders and has failed properly to prosecute the
instant case. Petitioner failed to appear at trial. Petitioner
did not participate in the stipulation process. Petitioner has
not submitted any evidence in support of his petition. Neither
this Court nor respondent has had any contact with petitioner
since the petition was filed. Consequently, we will grant
respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition in a deficiency
action shall contain “clear and concise assignments of each and
every error” that the taxpayer alleges the Commissioner committed
in the determination of the deficiency and the additions to tax
in dispute. Rule 34(b)(5) further requires that the petition
shall contain clear and concise lettered statements of the facts
upon which the taxpayer bases the assignments of error. Funk v.
Commissioner, 123 T.C. 213, 215 (2004); Jarvis v. Commissioner,
78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982). This Court deems the parties to concede
any issue, including additions to tax, not raised in the
pleadings. Rule 34(b)(4); Funk v. Commissioner, supra at 215;
Jarvis v. Commissioner, supra at 658 n.19.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011