- 8 - ordered that jurisdiction is no longer retained by the Division and that petitioner's case be restored to the general docket. The case was set for trial at the trial session beginning on September 15, 1997. On August 8, 1997, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment moving the Court that, based on matters deemed admitted by petitioner as set forth in respondent's requests for admission, we find petitioner liable for the deficiencies and additions to tax as shown in the notice of deficiency. In the event that the Court denies respondent's motion for summary judgment, respondent also contemporaneously filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus and testificandum to secure petitioner's presence at the September 15, 1997, trial session. On August 11, 1997, the Court ordered a response from petitioner to respondent's motion for summary judgment to be received on or before August 18, 1997. Petitioner has not complied with the Court's order. Petitioner has not filed any motion to withdraw the deemed admissions pursuant to Rule 90(f). Discussion Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials of phantom factual issues. Kroh v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 383, 390 (1992); Shiosaki v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862 (1974). Summary judgment is appropriatePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011