- 2 -
for summary judgment (collectively, respondent’s motions).1 We
shall grant those motions.
At the time the petition was filed in docket No. 14606-94,
the legal address of petitioner Dave Graf Daimler, f.k.a. Dieter
G. Mondragon, a.k.a. Hans Dieter Garcia Mondragon, a.k.a. Hans
Dieter Mondragon, a.k.a. Hans Dieter Modzanowski (Mr. Daimler)
was Wichita Falls, Texas. At the time the petition was filed in
docket No. 14608-94, the legal address of petitioner Dieter
Electronics Co., Inc., d.b.a. Audio Video Masters, a.k.a. Perry &
Bob TV, a.k.a. Ace Sewing Machine, a.k.a. Daimler, Inc., a.k.a.
Daimler Group (Dieter Electronics or the Company) was in Wichita
Falls, Texas.
Mr. Daimler and Dieter Electronics failed to reply in any
manner to respondent’s respective requests for admissions in
docket Nos. 14606-94 and 14608-94. Consequently, each matter set
forth in each of those requests is deemed admitted. See Rule
90(c);2 Marshall v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 267, 272 (1985). The
deemed admissions in these cases demonstrate that there are no
1In docket No. 14606-94, respondent filed a motion for
summary judgment only as to petitioner Dave Graf Daimler. That
is because on Sept. 23, 1998, petitioner Thelma Mondragon, a.k.a.
Tami Mondragon (Ms. Mondragon), and respondent filed a stipula-
tion of settlement which reflects their agreement as to all
issues in that case.
2All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure. All section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011