- 3 - The issues for decision are (1) whether there are any genuine issues as to material facts and, if there are no such issues, then (2) whether respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the deficiencies and additions to tax. Background--Procedure Petitioner invoked this Court’s jurisdiction by filing a timely petition from the two notices of deficiency that embodied respondent’s determinations described supra. Respondent filed an answer to the petition, including specific allegations with regard to the fraud determinations. Petitioner did not file a reply to this answer. Respondent filed a motion pursuant to Rule 37(c) that undenied allegations in the answer be deemed admitted. The Court issued an order to petitioner, advising him of the filing of respondent’s motion under Rule 37(c) and directing petitioner to file a reply to respondent’s answer within 20 days of the order. Petitioner failed to file a reply to respondent’s answer or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Consequently, we granted respondent’s Rule 37(c) motion, and the undenied allegations set forth in respondent’s answer were deemed to be admitted. Gilday v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 260, 261-262 (1974); see Gordon v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 736, 739-740 (1980). On May 20, 1997, the Court served the parties with notice of trial in St. Louis, Mo., the location designated by petitioner.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011