Opinion
2620-22
03-20-2023
LISHA FAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Joseph W. Nega Judge
This case was called and recalled from the calendar on March 6, 2023, at the Boston, Massachusetts, trial session of the Court. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. Counsel for respondent appeared and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.
On January 20, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts and Evidence Should Not be Accepted as Established Pursuant to Rule 91(f). In the motion, respondent represented that petitioner refused to review the stipulation of facts and refused to stipulate to any of the proposed facts. Per the Court's Order served January 26, 2023, the Court granted respondent's 91(f) motion and directed petitioner to show cause why the matters set forth in respondent's proposed stipulation of facts, attached to respondent's Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts and Evidence Should Not be Accepted as Established Pursuant to Rule 91(f), filed January 19, 2023, should not be deemed admitted. Petitioner filed a response to the Court's Order to Show Cause on February 14, 2023; however, the response does not directly address why the matters set forth in respondent's proposed stipulation of facts should not be deemed admitted for purposes of the pending case.
Petitioner seems to think that repeatedly calling various Judges' chambers as well as other Tax Court employees to profess (without any accompanying documentation or other substantiation) her entitlement to the claimed tax benefits is adequate to pursue her case. That is not correct. The decisions of this Court are based on the law and the facts of each case, not how vehemently a party believes in her position.
Petitioner was warned by multiple Tax Court employees that the failure to appear at calendar call could result in the dismissal of her case. She appeared neither at calendar call nor at the recalling of her case, even after respondent's counsel phoned to tell her the Court had set her case for recall.
The Court, during the hours between the calendar call and the recall, met informally in open court with the administrators and students of at least two local tax clinics. Apparently, petitioner never contacted these organizations to seek assistance. These organizations are still an available resource to petitioner.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause, served January 26, 2023, is hereby made absolute, and the facts and evidence set forth in respondent's proposed stipulation of facts, attached as Exhibit A to respondent's Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Proposed Facts and Evidence Should Not be Accepted as Established Pursuant to Rule 91(f), are deemed stipulated for the purposes of this case. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's motion to transfer venue, filed March 1, 2023, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration of Order, filed March 1, 2023, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that on or before April 12, 2023, petitioner shall supplement her response to respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution to attach any documents she has related to the disputed Cost of Goods Sold (COGs) and itemized deduction for legal and professional services. Failure to timely submit an appropriate supplement to the response may result in granting of respondent's motion to dismiss and entering an order and decision against petitioner.