- 17 -
T.C. 562, 571 (1978), affd. without published opinion 621 F.2d
439 (5th Cir. 1980). In respondent’s motion for sanctions,
respondent requests, inter alia, that the Court deem established
for purposes of the instant case the allegations in paragraph
7(a) through 7(s) of the answer. We find such a sanction to be
appropriate under the circumstances presented here,11 except that
we do not consider it appropriate to deem paragraph 7(r) and 7(s)
of the answer to be established. That is because those subpara-
graphs contain allegations that we find to be mixed allegations
of fact and law. We shall grant respondent’s motion in that the
allegations in respondent’s answer contained in paragraph 7(a)
through 7(d), 7(e) as corrected to reflect the parties’ stipula-
tion, see supra note 8, 7(f) through 7(n), 7(o) and 7(p) with the
mathematical errors corrected, see supra notes 9 and 10, and 7(q)
are deemed established as facts for purposes of this case.12 See
Rule 104(c)(1); see also Durovic v. Commissioner, supra at 119;
Marcus v. Commissioner, supra at 577.
11Rendering a judgment by default against petitioners in
this case is a sanction that also is available to us under Rule
104(c)(3). See Rule 104(c)(3); see also Rechtzigel v. Commis-
sioner, 79 T.C. 132, 139-140, (1982), affd. per curiam on other
grounds 703 F.2d 1063 (8th Cir. 1983). However, we shall not
impose such a sanction here since we proceeded with the trial in
this case on Oct. 23, 2000.
12The trial record in this case also establishes as facts
many of the allegations that, pursuant to Rule 104(c)(1), we are
deeming established as facts for purposes of this case.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011