Rechtzigel v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. The Tax Court in Brief - February 2021 #3

    Freeman LawJason FreemanMarch 8, 2021

    In general, entry of default under Rule 123(a) is appropriate as to issues where the Commissioner bears the burden of proof, while dismissal under Rule 123(b) is appropriate where the taxpayer bears the burden of proof. See Smith v. Comm’r, 926 F.2d 1470, 1476 (6th 1991), aff’g, 91 T.C. 1049 (1988); Putnam v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2015-160.The Tax Court has entered judgments of default or dismissal where a taxpayer: (1) unreasonably refused to stipulate facts or the authenticity of documents, Long v. Comm’r, 742 F.2d 1141 (8th 1984); (2) failed to comply with Court-ordered discovery, Rechtzigel v. Comm’r, 79 T.C. 132 (1982); or (3) failed to appear at trial, Ritchie v. Comm’r, 72 T.C. 126 (1979). The Tax Court has also pointed out that in cases where “a taxpayer does not thin well enough of his case to defend it where the government has the burden of proof, this Court should default him.”