- 3 -
that undenied allegations in respondent's answer to the amended
petition be deemed admitted. The Court issued an order to
petitioners advising them of the filing of respondent's motion
under Rule 37(c) and directing petitioners to file a reply to
respondent's answer on or before April 6, 1997.
Petitioners 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 judgment on the
pleadings with respect to petitioners' liability for the
deficiency and the fraud penalty set forth in the notice of
deficiency. By order dated May 20, 1997, petitioners were
notified that respondent's motion was calendared for hearing at
the motions session of the Court in Washington, D.C., on June 25,
1997. In addition, petitioners were directed to file a written
response in opposition to respondent's motion. Petitioners 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011