- 3 -
pursuant to Rule 37(c) requesting that the Court issue an order
that undenied allegations in the answer be deemed admitted. By
order dated August 31, 1995, petitioner was notified of the
filing of respondent's Rule 37(c) motion and was ordered to file
a reply to respondent's answer.3 Petitioner failed to file a
reply to respondent's answer, or otherwise respond to the Court's
order. Consequently, we granted respondent's Rule 37(c) motion,
and the undenied allegations set forth in respondent's answer
were deemed to be admitted. See Doncaster v. Commissioner, 77
T.C. 334, 336 (1981); Gilday v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 260, 261
(1974).
As indicated, respondent now moves for summary judgment with
respect to petitioner's liability for the deficiencies and
penalties set forth in the notice of deficiency. Petitioner was
notified that respondent's motion was calendared for hearing at
the motions session of the Court in Washington, D.C. In
addition, the Court issued an order directing petitioner to file
a written response to respondent's motion. Petitioner did not
respond to the Court's order.
Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing and presented
argument in support of the motion. No appearance was made by or
3 The Court's order dated Aug. 31, 1995, expressly advised
petitioner of the potential consequences that would attend a
failure to file a reply.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011