- 15 -
the majority of the cases pending in this Court are filed by pro
se litigants, most of whom do not have the educational background
that petitioner has. (Of the 46 groups of cases on the
September 11, 2006, calendar in Charleston, West Virginia, 43
groups involved pro se taxpayers. Thirty-three groups of cases
settled before or shortly after the calendar call.) Petitioner’s
pro se status does not entitle her to disregard orders or Rules
of the Court. See, e.g., Bauer v. Commissioner, 97 F.3d 45 (4th
Cir. 1996). She was clearly warned by the Court’s orders and
letter of the consequences of her failure to comply. If
petitioner truly desires a settlement, she must present
respondent’s counsel with information that would justify any
concession by respondent. If she wishes to refute the
deficiencies on the merits, she must produce evidence. She has
refused to do anything to show merit in her cases.
In the statutory notices and in respondent’s trial
memorandum, each item of income determined in respondent’s
determination for each year is listed by payor, form of third-
party report, and amount. That information was also provided to
petitioner in accordance with the Court’s order of June 6, 2006,
yet petitioner has shown no error in the determination of income.
See sec. 6201(d). We infer from her failure to produce evidence
that she has none or that it would be unfavorable to her claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011