Opinion
17027-18L
10-21-2022
KENNETH JAMES LAY, JR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Joseph W. Nega Judge
By Order issued January 20, 2022, the Court granted respondent's Motion to Remand, remanded this collection due process case to respondent's Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals), and retained jurisdiction. By Order issued July 25, 2022, the Court set the case for a remote status hearing on September 6, 2022, at the Birmingham, Alabama session of the Court. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. Respondent's counsel appeared and was heard. Respondent's counsel represented to the Court that petitioner had been "sporadically responsive" to the assigned settlement officer during the remand proceedings but had not been responsive to respondent's counsel. Respondent's counsel further represented that petitioner had failed to provide necessary documents and that a supplemental notice of determination would thus likely be issued in the near future.
By Order issued September 19, 2022, the Court directed respondent, on or before October 17, 2022, to issue and file with the Court a supplemental notice of determination. On October 5, 2022, respondent's Independent Office of Appeals issued to petitioner a supplemental notice of determination. On October 14, 2022, respondent filed a Status Report, attaching thereto a copy of the supplemental notice of determination. In the supplemental notice of determination, Appeals personnel stated in relevant part that petitioner had failed to provide requested financial information on multiple occasions.
Rule 123(b) provides that, "[f]or failure of a petitioner properly to prosecute or to comply with these Rules or any order of the Court or for other cause which the Court deems sufficient, the Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against the petitioner."
We are concerned both by petitioner's repeated failures to respond to Appeals' requests for information during the remand proceeding and by petitioner's failure to appear at the Court's remote status hearing of September 6, 2022. We will direct petitioner to show cause as to why we should not dismiss his case for a failure to properly prosecute. If petitioner fails to respond to this Order, the Court will be strongly inclined to, on its own motion, dismiss this case for a failure to properly prosecute.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that, on or before November 21, 2022, petitioner shall show cause in writing as to why the Court should not dismiss his case for a failure to properly prosecute.