- 9 -
required by Rule 133,6 which further underscores what appears to
be petitioner’s intentional attempt 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 stated that he would forward
numerous documents to respondent, he never sent anything. In
fact, respondent had to send petitioner copies of eight of
petitioner’s tax returns to get petitioner to communicate with
him at all. Furthermore, petitioner did not appear at the June
13, 2005, trial session or document any legitimate reason for his
failure to do so.
We find that petitioner has failed to comply with the
Court’s Rules and orders and has failed properly to prosecute
this case. See Rollercade, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 116-
117; Smith v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner’s course of
conduct throughout the proceedings demonstrates that these
6Under Rule 133, a motion for continuance filed 30 days or
less before the trial date will be denied unless the ground for
continuance arose within that period or there was good reason for
not making the motion sooner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011