Marvin L. Barmes and Barbara J. Barmes - Page 17

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011