__________________________________________________ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DENIED: January 26, 1994 __________________________________________________ GSBCA 12445-TD PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent. Joseph R. Lefft of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs & Pollard, Columbia, SC, counsel for Appellant. Donald M. Suica and Lori R. Larson, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges WILLIAMS, VERGILIO and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) requests that we dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute because Property Maintenance Corporation (Property Maintenance) did not supplement its prehearing submissions within the time permitted by the Board. Even though Property Maintenance did not file its submissions within the time permitted, sufficient grounds do not exist to dismiss this appeal. Dismissal for failure to prosecute is one of the harshest sanctions available to us and, as a result, it is an option we use sparingly and only when the evidence presented in support of the motion is especially convincing. Capitol Gas v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12334 (Jan. 12, 1994); Notter, Feingold & Alexander, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11908 (Nov. 29, 1993). Property Maintenance has not neglected this appeal, even though in recent weeks some of its submissions have been incomplete and have not been filed by the required date. Treasury has cited no authority and we know of none to suggest that a dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate in circumstances such as exist here. ______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: ______________________________ _______________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge Board Judge