- 11 -
with respondent or produce documents because of his medical
condition lack credibility because petitioner apparently had
access to a facsimile machine and managed to contact respondent
shortly before the September 7, 2004, trial session was scheduled
to begin. Moreover, petitioner’s arguments implying that
respondent has not diligently prosecuted this case are unfounded.
Respondent has given petitioner ample opportunity to participate
in the resolution of his claim and has contacted petitioner on
numerous occasions to inform him of the status of the case.
We find that petitioner has failed to comply with this
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
failures are due to petitioner’s willfulness, bad faith, or
fault, and we conclude that dismissal of this case is
appropriate. Petitioner has not raised any issue upon which
respondent has the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933) (Commissioner’s determinations in
the notice of deficiency are presumed correct; taxpayer bears the
burden of proving them wrong).3
3Because petitioner has not introduced any credible evidence
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011