- 3 -
an answer alleging, among other things, that because petitioner
failed to file Federal income tax returns for the years in issue,
the period of limitations on assessment had not expired.
Petitioner failed to respond to the answer, and on May 21, 1996,
this Court granted respondent's motion under Rule 37(c) for entry
of an order that the undenied allegations in respondent's answer
be deemed admitted.
During discovery, petitioner consistently refused delivery
of and failed to respond to respondent's correspondence that was
mailed to petitioner. On several occasions, messages, such as
"return to sender" or "no such person at this location", were
handwritten on the correspondence that was refused by petitioner
and returned to respondent.
On October 4, 1996, after confirming petitioner's address
with petitioner over the telephone, respondent served on
petitioner two copies of requests for admission of factual
matter, one by regular first-class mail and one by certified
mail. Petitioner did not respond to the requests for admission,
and, under Rule 90(c), each factual matter set forth in the
requests for admission was deemed admitted.
Based on the above deemed admissions under Rules 37(c) and
90(c), the following facts are established in this case.
During 1986 through 1990, petitioner was married and was self-
employed as a chiropractor. For the years in issue, petitioner
did not file Federal income tax returns.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011