Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль

Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / William L. Hughey v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1991-474, Docket No. 8336-90., Filed September 25, 1991

William L. Hughey v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1991-474, Docket No. 8336-90., Filed September 25, 1991


William L. Hughey v. Commissioner.

United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision

T.C. Memo. 1991-474

Docket No. 8336-90.

Filed September 25, 1991.

William L. Hughey, pro se. Debra Lynn Reale, for the respondent.

Memorandum Opinion

HALPERN, Judge: Pending in this case are respondent's motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute and for sanctions pursuant to section 6673(a)(1). 1


1 Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended and in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.


Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1982 Federal income tax and additions to tax as follows:

At the time of filing the petition in this case, petitioner resided in Lake Hughes, California.

Respondent determined that petitioner failed to file a Federal income tax return for 1982 reporting the receipt of wages from the County of Los Angeles and interest earned on credit union deposits. In his petition, petitioner claimed that he was not a taxpayer and that respondent had no authority to make deficiency determinations. The case was calendared for trial in Pasadena, California, in June 1991. On May 3, 1991, respondent's counsel sent to petitioner a proposed stipulation of facts and invited him to a stipulation conference on May 9, 1991, or any other convenient time. Petitioner failed to respond in writing or by telephone to that letter and did not appear at the stipulation conference. On May 16, 1991, petitioner left a message for respondent's counsel stating that he would soon be in contact. However, petitioner neither contacted respondent or his counsel nor provided respondent or this Court with a telephone number at which he might be contacted. No correspondence sent to petitioner has been returned to the sender. Petitioner failed to appear at the call of the trial calendar.

Because petitioner has failed to make any effort to prosecute this case beyond the mere filing of the petition, good cause exists to dismiss this case. Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution will be granted. See Rule 123(b).

Respondent also requests a penalty against petitioner under section 6673(a). Under that section, we may impose a penalty not to exceed $25,000 where a taxpayer has instituted or maintained proceedings primarily for delay or where the taxpayer takes positions that are frivolous or groundless. Sec. 6673(a)(1)(A) and (B). We agree with respondent that petitioner has not disputed the deficiency and additions to tax except by general disagreement. See Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). Petitioner solely has advanced tax-protestor type arguments of the sort we have rejected as frivolous and without merit, finding suits advancing only such positions to have been instituted primarily for delay. See Bush v. Commissioner [Dec. 46,486(M)], T.C. Memo. 1990-157, affd. without published opinion 921 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1990); Masters v. Commissioner [Dec. 45,996(M)], T.C. Memo. 1989-477, affd. without published opinion 919 F.2d 145 (9th Cir. 1990); Karlin v. Commissioner [Dec. 45,981(M)], T.C. Memo. 1989-464. Accordingly, we require petitioner to pay to the United States a penalty in the amount of $2,000.

An appropriate order and decision will be entered.


Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  


Электронный документ: вчера, сегодня, завтра

Несколько последних публикаций экспертов Synerdocs были посвящены электронным документам в судах и развитию системы электронного правосудия. В настоящей статье хотелось бы подвести некоторый итог и поднять вопрос о будущем электронного правосудия в России. А оно, как вы понимаете, напрямую связано с электронными документами

Чек-лист для проверки электронного документа на юридическую значимость

В этом году мы много говорили о представлении электронных документов в суд, не скупились на советы и рекомендации. При этом давно не поднимали тему юридической значимости. Пожалуй, с этого стоило начать цикл статей про электронное правосудие. Предлагаю обсудить, из чего же складывается юридическая значимость любого документа, и на что стоит обратить внимание при проверке документа на соответствие требованиям действующего законодательства в области ЭДО. Информация будет полезна всем: кто уже работает с электронными аналогами и тем, кто только открывает для себя новую область знаний.