Dennis P. and Diana C. Raquet - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          the introduction of petitioners' 1982 Federal income tax return             
          which reported petitioners' amount of tax as zero.                          
               Alternatively, if respondent were to have the burden of                
          proof, she could satisfy her burden of proof based on deemed                
          admissions.  See, e.g., Doncaster v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 334              
          (1981); Baldwin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-119.  Pursuant             
          to Rule 90(c), each matter is deemed admitted unless within 30              
          days after service of the request the party to whom the request             
          is directed serves upon the requesting party either (1) a written           
          answer specifically admitting or denying the matter involved or             
          (2) an objection.  Respondent issued requests for admissions on             
          February 8, 1995.  Petitioner never responded to respondent's               
          requests for admissions.  Thus, even if respondent had the burden           
          of proof, she would have satisfied her burden of proof with                 
          respect to the increased deficiency, since respondent's requests            
          are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 90(c), including an admis-             
          sion that the deficiency for the taxable year 1982 is in the                
          amount of $29,913.                                                          
          Lack of Prosecution                                                         
               With respect to respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of             
          Prosecution as to petitioner Diana C. Raquet, Rules 123(b) and              
          149(a) provide as follows:                                                  
                    [Rule 123](b) Dismissal:  For failure of a                        
               petitioner properly to prosecute or to comply with                     
               these Rules or any order of the Court or for other                     
               cause which the Court deems sufficient, the Court may                  
               dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011