- 5 -
response to the Court's request that he provide specific evidence
regarding the matters raised by respondent, petitioner refused,
stating:
I stand on the documentation that I have provided this Court
that there are no implementing Federal regulations in title
26 for enforcement actions against me. I stand on that.
That is all I have to say to this Court.
Respondent then filed the instant motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Rule 121.
This case was recalled 2 days later. Petitioner's oral
motion to dismiss was denied. Petitioner's original and
supplemental responses to the show cause order were determined to
be unresponsive and, thus, not in compliance with that order and
Rule 91. Consequently, respondent's proposed stipulations of
fact were accepted as established for purposes of this case.
Rule 91(f); Marcus v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 562, 573 (1978),
affd. without published opinion 621 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1980).
Additionally, petitioner's original and supplemental responses to
respondent's requests for admission were determined to offer
neither sufficient answers nor justified objections to any
matters contained in the requested admissions. Consequently, the
requested admissions were deemed admitted for purposes of this
case. Rule 90(c); Marshall v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 267, 272
(1985). The Court then inquired of petitioner whether he had any
other evidence to submit or factual matters to dispute.
Petitioner responded in the negative. Consequently, the Court
vacated the scheduled trial and granted petitioner 30 days to
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