Brandt N. Castleton - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          the deemed admissions to prepare for trial.  Petitioner did not             
          move before trial for relief from the deemed admissions and                 
          apparently did not notify respondent of his intention to seek               
          relief from the deemed admissions.  Most importantly, petitioner            
          did not supply respondent with any documents or information in              
          advance of trial that would have put respondent on notice that              
          any of the deemed admissions were in error.  When petitioner                
          finally made his oral motion at trial, he offered the Court no              
          compelling reason why he had failed to respond to the requests              
          for admission.                                                              
               Because we find that respondent reasonably relied on the               
          deemed admissions and that withdrawal of the deemed admissions              
          would not foster presentation of the merits and would unfairly              
          prejudice respondent, we shall deny petitioner's motion for                 
          relief from the deemed admissions.  See Dahlstrom v.                        
          Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 819 (1985); Morrison v. Commissioner,            
          supra at 649.                                                               
          B.   Income Tax Deficiencies                                                
              In general, the Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency            
         is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving            












Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011