- 14 -
during a period of time when petitioner was entitled to Fifth
Amendment protection and that after the judgment in the criminal
proceeding was entered on August 14, 1996, respondent should have
renewed the requests for admission.
To date, petitioner has not responded to respondent's
requests for admission. Petitioner has had more than ample time
to respond thereto after the judgment in petitioner's criminal
proceeding was entered. This Court issued a pretrial order dated
October 1, 1996, which notified petitioner that this case was
proceeding to trial. When respondent filed the motion for
partial summary judgment on December 30, 1996, more than 30 days
had passed since judgment was rendered in petitioner's criminal
proceeding and since our pretrial order was issued on October 1,
1996. Further, petitioner cites no authority for his assertion
that respondent was required to renew the requests for admission
after judgment was entered in petitioner's criminal proceeding.
We conclude that respondent's requests for admission were
properly deemed admitted under Rule 90(c).
The evidence establishes that for 1976 petitioner received
unreported income of at least $1,968,364, that petitioner is not
entitled to losses of $9,269,756 relating to the S-J
partnerships, and that petitioner is liable for the fraud
addition to tax as determined by respondent. We also conclude
that no material factual matter remains in dispute that would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011