- 8 -
his case, failure to comply with the Rules of the Court or any
order of the Court, or for any cause that 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. See 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).
Petitioner disregarded the Court’s Rules and standing
pretrial order by failing to cooperate with respondent in
preparing his case for trial. Respondent’s counsel repeatedly
asked petitioner to comply with respondent’s informal discovery
requests and to cooperate in preparing a stipulation of facts.
Despite those requests, petitioner failed to respond to or
produce any documents supporting his position. Petitioner’s
continuous refusal to meet respondent’s requests for discovery
made it impossible for the parties to exchange information,
conduct negotiations, or prepare a stipulation of facts before
trial. Petitioner failed to prepare and submit a pretrial
memorandum before the scheduled trial session as required by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008