Opinion
12103-20
09-22-2022
CHADD FOX, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
ALBERT G. LAUBER, JUDGE
With respect to petitioner's 2017 tax year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined a deficiency of $93,609 and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $18,722. The deficiency results from respondent's determination that petitioner had failed to substantiate expense deductions and credits. Respondent has since conceded that petitioner is not liable for the penalty.
Petitioner timely petitioned this Court in October 2020, and the case was originally calendared on the Court's June 14, 2021, Denver, Colorado, trial session. On April 7, 2021, petitioner moved for a continuance, to which respondent did not object. We granted that motion and calendared this case for remote trial on February 7, 2022, set for administrative purposes in Denver, Colorado.
On January 7, 2022, petitioner filed another motion for continuance. His counsel represented that, due to health issues and financial difficulties, petitioner "has been unable to participate in trial preparation." Later the same day respondent filed a notice of objection to petitioner's motion. Respondent stated that he did not oppose a continuance; however, he noted that this case had already been continued once and represented that petitioner had yet to provide any documentation to substantiate his claimed deductions and credits.
On January 11, 2022, we granted petitioner's motion for continuance, but retained jurisdiction to monitor the parties' progress. We directed petitioner to supply to respondent's counsel, by March 14, 2022, all documents on which he would expect to rely at trial. On March 31, 2022, respondent filed a status report representing that petitioner had not submitted any documentation by March 14 or subsequently. On April 1, 2022, petitioner's counsel filed a status report asserting that petitioner's illness prevented him from producing documents and that it would not "be productive in moving this case forward to order document disclosure . . . [until] petitioner is well enough to gather documents and assist counsel in the preparation of this case."
On April 4, 2022, we issued an order directing petitioner to provide to respondent's counsel, by June 20, 2022, all documents on which he expected to rely as support for his claimed deductions and credits. Petitioner was advised that, absent extraordinary circumstances, he would not be permitted to use at trial any documents not supplied to respondent by that date. On July 8, 2022, respondent filed a status report representing that petitioner had not submitted any documentation by June 20 or subsequently.
On July 13, 2022, we issued an order granting petitioner an extension of time, until August 26, 2022, to provide to respondent the documents on which he expected to rely at trial. The Court afforded petitioner this additional time on account of his alleged health condition. On September 6, 2022, respondent filed a status report representing that petitioner had not submitted any documentation by August 26 or subsequently.
On September 7, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Prosecute. Respondent's counsel represents that he twice attempted to contact petitioner's counsel to ascertain petitioner's views on the granting of this Motion. Respondent's counsel represents Petitioner's counsel did not respond to either of his messages.
The standing pre-trial order in this case informed petitioner of his obligation to cooperate with respondent in preparing this case for trial or other disposition. Rule 123(b) of the Tax Court Rules provides that, "[f]or failure of a petitioner properly to prosecute or to comply with these Rules or any order of the Court, * * * the Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against the petitioner."
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that, on or before October 13, 2022, petitioner shall file a response to the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Prosecute. Petitioner is advised that, if he fails to respond, the Court will likely dismiss this case and enter a decision against him for the deficiency set forth in respondent's Motion.