- 3 -
dated January 14, 1997, petitioner was notified of the filing of
respondent's Rule 37(c) motion and was ordered to file a reply to
respondent's answer.2 Petitioner failed to file a reply to
respondent's answer or otherwise respond to the Court's notice.
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 summary judgment with
respect to petitioner's liability for the deficiency and penalty
set forth in the notice of deficiency. On April 7, 1997, the
Court issued an order directing petitioner to file a written
response to respondent's motion on or before May 15, 1997.
Petitioner did not respond to the Court's order.
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Florida Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be
granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in
controversy "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories,
depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
2 The Court’s notice dated Jan. 14, 1997, expressly advised
petitioner of the potential consequences that would result from a
failure to file a reply.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011