Opinion
3093-21
06-09-2023
ALEXANDER ENRIQUEZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Juan F. Vasquez Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, filed April 18, 2022. Respondent seeks to sustain a Notice of Deficiency, dated January 8, 2021, concerning petitioner's unpaid tax liabilities for taxable years 2017 and 2018.
On May 3, 2022, the Court held a conference call with petitioner and counsel for respondent. During the call petitioner made an Oral Motion for Continuance, to which respondent's counsel had no objection. The Court ordered the parties to submit a stipulated decision or file a joint status report.
On July 6, 2022, petitioner and respondent filed a joint status report in which they indicated that petitioner was in the process of collecting records and documents related to his case. On August 31, 2022, respondent filed a status report stating that petitioner was still attempting to collect records and documents related to the case. On October 25, 2022, the parties filed a joint status report in which they indicated that petitioner had been able to produce some documents, but was requesting additional time to produce more documents. On December 20, 2022, respondent filed a status report indicating that he had attempted to contact petitioner three times since November 21, 2022. Once by email on November 21, 2022, once by telephone on November 29, 2022, and once by the United States Postal Service by letter mailed December 1, 2022. Respondent's status report indicated that the attempt to contact petitioner by telephone on November 29, 2022, resulted in an email from petitioner to respondent, in which petitioner stated that he was on vacation and would call respondent upon his return on December 5, 2022. Petitioner has not called, emailed, or provided any additional documents related to this case. By Order dated January 23, 2023, we ordered petitioner to file a response to respondent's status report on or before February 22, 2023. Petitioner has not filed a response.
We will give petitioner one last chance to avoid an adverse decision by directing him to explain, in writing, why respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution should not be granted. The Court reminds petitioner that failure to file a response to a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution may be grounds for granting the motion. See Rule 121(d). In other words, if petitioner does not respond, in writing, as required by this Order, this Court may grant the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. Additionally, if respondent's Motion is granted, then there will be no trial, and a judgment will be entered against petitioner sustaining the notice of deficiency.
The foregoing considered, it is
ORDERED that, on or before June 21, 2023, petitioner shall show cause, in writing, why respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution should not be granted.