- 8 -
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 113, 116-117 (1991); Smith v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2003-266, affd. sub nom. Hook v. Commissioner, 103
Fed. Appx. 661 (10th Cir. 2004).
Petitioner has disregarded the Court’s Rules and standing
pretrial order by failing to cooperate meaningfully with
respondent to prepare this case for trial. Petitioner’s pattern
of failing to appear for scheduled conferences, failing to
respond to respondent’s correspondence, and ignoring respondent’s
requests for production of records made it impossible for the
parties to exchange information, conduct negotiations, or prepare
and finalize a stipulation of facts before trial. Petitioner’s
multiple requests for continuance made less than 30 days before
the beginning of the September 7, 2004, trial session, which
failed to allege exceptional circumstances as required by Rule
133, further underscore what appears to have been an intentional
attempt on the part of petitioner to unreasonably delay the
proceedings. See Williams v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 276, 279-280
(2002).
Petitioner was repeatedly warned by respondent’s counsel and
by the Court of the consequences of failing to prepare for trial
and of failing to appear at trial. Despite those warnings,
petitioner repeatedly failed to make any reasonable effort to
demonstrate his good faith and his willingness to prepare his
case for trial. Although petitioner asserted that he wanted to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011