- 3 -
reply to respondent's answer, but since respondent did not file a
motion pursuant to Rule 37(c), the affirmative allegations of
fraud in the answer are deemed denied.
Respondent sought to have petitioner enter into stipulations
of fact and also served on petitioner requests for admission with
respect to various matters raised in this case. Petitioner in
response refused to stipulate any matter or to specifically
address any of the requested admissions.
In support of his refusal either to stipulate or to admit,
petitioner took the position that his Tax Court petition is "null
and void" because respondent lacks assessment and collection
authority, in that such authority has been transferred from the
Internal Revenue Service to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms (BATF).
The Court subsequently ordered petitioner to show cause why
respondent's proposed stipulations should not be accepted as
established, directing petitioner to specifically address the
factual matters raised in the proposed stipulations (show cause
order). Petitioner declined to comply with the show cause order,
repeating the argument that respondent's assessment and
collection authority had been transferred to the BATF.
Respondent also filed a motion to review the sufficiency of
petitioner's answers to requested admissions (motion to review).
Petitioner's response to the motion to review again referenced
the BATF argument and further stated that "Respondent's Notice of
Deficiency did not list the statute and implementing regulations
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011