-4-
determined that if no portion of the underpayment of each
petitioner’s tax for 2001 was due to fraud, petitioners were
each, pursuant to section 6662, liable for an accuracy-related
penalty.
On September 15, 2004, Ms. Ngo, while residing in Temple
City, California, and 168 Garment, whose principal place of
business was in South El Monte, California, filed their
respective petitions. On March 10, 2005, respondent filed
separate answers with respect to Ms. Ngo’s and 168 Garment’s
petitions. On August 9, 2005, this Court, pursuant to Rule
91(f), granted respondent’s motion to show cause why proposed
facts should not be accepted as established and made that order
absolute after petitioners failed to file a response as ordered.
On September 8, 2005, the Court granted respondent’s motion to
consolidate docket Nos. 9243-04, 17152-04, and 17153-04 for
purposes of trial, briefing, and opinion.
Discussion
At calendar call on September 19, 2005, respondent filed
three motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution relating to
docket Nos. 9243-04, 17152-04, and 17153-04, yet petitioners did
not appear at trial or submit a response. Thus, we will grant
all three motions. See Rules 53, 123(b). Accordingly, we
sustain respondent’s determinations that 168 Garment, for 2000
and 2001, understated its income; in 2000 and 2001, failed to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011