- 2 -
and 183.1 The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion of the
Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below.
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
NAMEROFF, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the
Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Background
On June 27, 1996, respondent mailed a notice of deficiency
to petitioner determining a deficiency in the amount of $176,399
in petitioner's Federal income tax for 1992. In addition,
respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the penalty
for fraud under section 6663(a) in the amount of $132,299.
Petitioner filed a timely petition for redetermination with the
Court on September 27, 1996, at which time he was a resident of
Ontario, CA.
Respondent filed a timely answer to the petition which
includes affirmative allegations in support of respondent's
determination that petitioner is liable for the penalty for fraud
for the taxable year in issue. Petitioner failed to file a reply
to respondent's answer within the 45-day period prescribed in
Rule 37(a). As a consequence, respondent filed a motion pursuant
to Rule 37(c) requesting that the Court issue an order that
undenied allegations in the answer be deemed admitted. By notice
1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the year in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011