- 5 -
Petitioners failed to respond as required by Rule 90 and,
consequently, the requested findings were deemed admitted
pursuant to Rule 90(c). The deemed admissions essentially
concede petitioners' case.
On July 27, 1998, respondent filed his motion for summary
judgment, together with a memorandum of law in support thereof.
In his motion, respondent requests that summary judgment be
granted as to the deficiencies and addition to tax set forth in
the notice of deficiency. Respondent alleges that the
concessions deemed admitted under Rule 90(c) establish that there
is no genuine dispute of material fact, and that a decision in
favor of respondent may be entered as a matter of law.
On July 28, 1998, the Court ordered petitioners to file a
response to respondent's motion for summary judgment on or before
August 13, 1998. Petitioners did not file a response.
At the calendar call on September 8, 1998, this case was
called, and petitioner appeared on his own behalf. In response
to the Court's questions regarding his failure to respond to the
Branerton letters and to comply with the Court's Standing Pre-
Trial Order, petitioner explained that he had separated from his
wife, had changed job locations, and was dependent upon his wife
to inform him when he received mail at his Carson, California,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011