T.C. Memo. 2009-25

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

DAVID DE HAAS, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 12330-07L. Filed February 4, 2009.

David De Haas, pro se.

Fred E. Green, Jr., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GALE, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s

motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.
- 2 -

1Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended, and all Rule references

are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Background

Petitioner seeks review under section 6330(d)1 of

respondent’s determination to proceed with a levy to collect

unpaid income taxes for petitioner’s 2002 and 2003 taxable years. 

Petitioner resided in Nevada when the petition was filed. 

Respondent’s determination was contained in a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320

and/or 6330 issued after petitioner requested a hearing

concerning the proposed levy.

A notice setting case for trial, setting the trial in this

case for November 17, 2008, was served on petitioner on June 12,

2008. This notice stated:

The parties are hereby notified that the above-entitled

case is set for trial at the Trial Session beginning on

November 17, 2008.

The calendar for that Session will be called at 10:00

A.M. on that date and both parties are expected to be

present at that time and be prepared to try the case. YOUR

FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND

ENTRY OF DECISION AGAINST YOU.

Your attention is called to the Court’s requirement

that * * * the parties, before trial, must agree in writing

to all facts and documents about which there should be no

disagreement. Therefore, the parties should contact each

other promptly and cooperate fully so that the necessary

steps can be taken to comply with this requirement. YOUR

FAILURE TO COOPERATE MAY ALSO RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE

CASE AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU.
- 3 -

The notice setting case for trial was accompanied by a

standing pretrial order, which likewise ordered the parties to

stipulate facts to the maximum extent possible, ordered the

parties to submit pretrial memoranda not less than 14 days before

the first day of the trial session, and warned that an unexcused

failure to comply with the standing pretrial order might result

in sanctions, including dismissal.

On October 28, 2008, the Court received a document from

petitioner styled as a motion to set aside trial date, in which

petitioner contended that a trial was unnecessary because the

Court’s review of his case was confined to what took place during

his administrative hearing. The motion accordingly requested

that the Court set a briefing schedule.

By order dated November 6, 2008, the Court denied

petitioner’s motion. The order advised petitioner that the

parties’ pleadings set forth differing views of what occurred in

connection with petitioner’s hearing and that a trial would give

each party the opportunity to offer evidence to support his

version of the hearing. The order further directed petitioner to

Rule 122, which would provide a means for disposing of the case

without trial if the parties were to stipulate regarding the

contents of the administrative file. The order again cautioned

petitioner that his failure to appear at trial could result in

dismissal of the case and entry of judgment against him. 
- 4 -

Finally, the order advised petitioner that a written statement

pursuant to Rule 50(c) may not be submitted in lieu of appearing

for trial.

On November 14, 2008, 3 days before the scheduled trial, the

Court received a document from petitioner styled as a statement

under Rule 50(c) that was “in lieu of attending the Trial date”.

When this case was called for trial on November 17, 2008,

there was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. 

Respondent thereupon filed a motion to dismiss for lack of

prosecution, attached to which was a copy of the notice of

determination issued to petitioner. Petitioner was subsequently

granted leave to file an objection to respondent’s motion.

Discussion

The Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a

decision against the taxpayer for failure properly to prosecute

his case, failure to comply with the Rules of this Court or any

order of the Court, or for any cause which the Court deems

sufficient. Rule 123(b); Edelson v. Commissioner, 829 F.2d 828,

831 (9th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1986-223; McCoy v.

Commissioner, 696 F.2d 1234, 1236 (9th Cir. 1983), affg. 76 T.C.

1027 (1981). In addition, the Court may dismiss a case for lack

of prosecution if the taxpayer inexcusably fails to appear at

trial and does not otherwise participate in the resolution of his
- 5 -

claim. Rule 149(a); Brooks v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 413 (1984),

affd. without published opinion 772 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1985).

Petitioner has failed properly to prosecute this case. In

the motion to dismiss, respondent’s counsel contends that he

received no communication from petitioner with respect to any

aspects of the Tax Court proceeding, even though respondent’s

counsel made several attempts to contact petitioner. In his

objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioner does not deny this

claim; he simply ignores it. We take it as established for

purposes of respondent’s motion.

Petitioner was aware that this case had been set for trial,

as evidenced by his motion to set aside trial date, which refers

to the November 17, 2008, trial date. In his motion to set aside

trial date, his purported Rule 50(c) statement, and in his

objection to respondent’s motion to dismiss, petitioner, citing

Robinette v. Commissioner, 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006), revg.

123 T.C. 85 (2004), contends that a trial is unnecessary because

the Court may consider only the administrative record–-that is,

the matters raised and considered at his administrative hearing. 

However, even where the Tax Court is confined to a review of the

record compiled in a section 6330 hearing, a trial is often

appropriate to allow the reviewing court “to receive evidence

concerning what happened during the agency proceedings.” Id. at

461. Here, the pleadings of the parties differ with respect to
- 6 -

what occurred at the hearing. Yet in addition to failing to

appear for trial, petitioner also failed to stipulate concerning

the contents of the administrative record. The Court is thus

left with no means of resolving the parties’ competing versions

thereof.

We are also satisfied that petitioner was on fair notice

that he was required to appear for trial and that a statement

under Rule 50(c) was not an acceptable substitute for his

appearance. This Court has held that a statement under Rule

50(c) is not an acceptable substitute for an appearance at trial

in a section 6330 proceeding, see Klootwyk v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2008-214, and petitioner was so advised in the Court’s

order of November 6, 2008.

Petitioner disregarded the Court’s warning that a statement

under Rule 50(c) would not relieve him of his obligation to

appear, disregarded the order that he engage in an effort to

stipulate, disregarded his obligation to submit a pretrial

memorandum, and disregarded his obligation to cooperate with

respondent to prepare the case for trial. We accordingly

conclude that petitioner has failed to properly prosecute this

case. All of the material allegations set forth in the amended

petition in support of assignments of error have been denied in

respondent’s answer, and respondent has not conceded any error

assigned in the amended petition. The notice of determination
- 7 -

submitted by respondent contains a verification that the

requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure

were met, addresses the issues raised by petitioner, and

concludes that the proposed levy balances the need for efficient

collection with the concern that any collection action be no more

intrusive than necessary.

We therefore conclude that dismissal under Rule 123(b) is

warranted and respondent is entitled to a decision in his favor. 

Accordingly, respondent may proceed with the proposed levy to

collect petitioner’s outstanding 2002 and 2003 income tax

liabilities.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and

decision will be entered.