- 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
appropriate
Page: 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