Anthony D. Long - Page 7
- 7 -
for reconsideration.5 Because petitioner did not appear and did
not cooperate with respondent in preparing the case for trial,
respondent orally requested that the Court dismiss this case for
lack of prosecution. The Court gave respondent a period of time
to file a written motion, and respondent’s motion to dismiss for
lack of prosecution and to impose a penalty under section
6673(a)(1) was filed on February 12, 2007.
On March 7, 2007, petitioner filed an opposition to
respondent’s motion. Petitioner argues only that respondent’s
motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and to impose a penalty
under section 6673(a)(1) is an impermissible joinder of motions
under Rule 54. However, petitioner did not address the merits of
respondent’s motion or contest the facts alleged therein.
Because we conclude that petitioner failed to properly prosecute
this case for the reasons set forth below, we shall grant
respondent’s motion insofar as it seeks a dismissal of this case.
In addition, because we conclude that we must grant respondent’s
motion to dismiss, we shall deny respondent’s motion for summary
judgment as moot.
The Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a
decision against the taxpayer for failure properly to prosecute
5Because of petitioner’s failure to appear at the trial
session, the Court did not hear respondent’s motion for summary
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: March 27, 2008