- 5 -
Admission Request. Not having received a response from petition-
er, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 8,
1996, asking that, based on matters deemed admitted by petitioner
as set forth in respondent's requests for admission, we find
petitioner liable for the deficiencies as determined by respon-
dent in the notice of deficiency. Further, respondent asked the
Court to find that respondent had met the burden of proving that
petitioner fraudulently failed to file a Federal income tax
return for each of the years at issue. The Court ordered a
response from petitioner to respondent's Motion for Summary
Judgment on or before September 9, 1996. Petitioner failed to
respond to the Court's order. By order dated October 3, 1996,
respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was calendared for
hearing on December 2, 1996. At the hearing, no appearance by or
on behalf of petitioner was made. The Court heard respondent's
arguments on the Motion for Summary Judgment and took it under
advisement.
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Kroh v. Commissioner, 98
T.C. 383, 390 (1992); Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90
T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Rule 121 provides that either party may
move for summary judgment upon any or all parts of the legal
issues in controversy. When either party makes such a motion,
the opposing party must file "An opposing written response,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011