- 9 -
(4) petitioner has failed to respond to respondent’s letters
requesting that petitioner attend a conference and produce his
records for respondent’s review.
Petitioner requests that the Court deny respondent’s motion
to dismiss, alleging in his September 7, 2004, response to
respondent’s motion that
Had respondent not been less than diligent in his
prosecution of this case, even given my medical
situation there is a reasonable chance we could have
brought this case to closure. As it stands, Respondent
has clearly dropped the ball and it is only fair and
reasonable that I be relieved of further prosecution.
Discussion
The Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a
decision against the taxpayer for failure properly to prosecute
his case, failure to comply with the Rules of the Court or any
order of the Court, or for any cause which the Court deems
sufficient. Rule 123(b). Dismissal is appropriate where the
taxpayer’s failure to comply with the Court’s Rules and orders is
due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Dusha v. Commissioner,
82 T.C. 592, 599 (1984). In addition, 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. Rule 149(a); Rollercade, Inc. v.
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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011