- 6 -
involved in some type of conspiracy with Court employees.
Petitioner has not shown or specifically identified any
particular act that would be considered fraudulent.
Discussion
Our consideration of respondent’s motions to dismiss for
lack of prosecution is a relatively simple matter. Petitioner
filed petitions in these cases generally alleging error in
respondent’s determinations for his 2003 and 2004 tax years. No
penalties or matters upon which respondent would bear a burden of
proof or production were determined against or identified by
petitioner. There was some pretrial activity, including
petitioner’s failed motion for summary judgment. Petitioner then
made ultimatums of settlement on his terms followed by his
refusal to further discuss these cases with respondent or to
receive any correspondence from the Court. He failed to appear
for trial or respond to respondent’s motions or Court orders, and
it is clear that his cases should be dismissed for his failure to
prosecute. Petitioner delayed these cases, his conduct has been
contumacious, and he was given ample opportunity to pursue the
merits of his tax dispute but failed to do so. Accordingly, we
will grant respondent’s motions to dismiss for failure to
properly prosecute.
Respondent’s motions to impose sanctions under I.R.C.
section 6673 are also presented for our consideration. In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008