-3-
respondent allowed. However, petitioner does not claim an
overpayment.
After the instant case was noticed for trial, respondent
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In this motion respondent
relies on deemed admissions by Anthony and Gloria Donnora,
hereinafter referred to as Anthony and Gloria, respectively, and
as the Donnoras, collectively, in another docket, Donnora v.
Commissioner, docket No. 9470-97, contending that these deemed
admissions--
must be deemed admitted as against petitioner because the
Donnoras are the owners of petitioner and are the only
parties who can therefore properly act for petitioner and
admit or deny allegations pertaining to petitioner. Tax
Court Rule 23. Having admitted that $112,934.00 in
Forkston’s gross receipts were diverted to themselves and
were omitted from Forkston’s income tax return for 1990 in
the Donnora case, and to having been found guilty under
I.R.C. � 7206(2), Anthony and Gloria[3] Donnora cannot now
deny that there was an omission of income on Forkston’s
corporate income tax return for the year 1990 in the amount
of $112,934.00.
Petitioner, in its response to the motion, points out that
(1) Anthony and Gloria are denying in their docket the factual
allegations that respondent relies on in the motion in the
instant case, (2) petitioner had not been indicted or convicted
for tax fraud for 1990, (3) although Anthony had been convicted
under section 7206(2) with regard to petitioner’s 1990 tax
return, the jury did not make, and was not directed to make, any
3 The record does not include any information indicating
that Gloria was convicted, or even indicted, under sec. 7206(2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011