- 14 -
function is fulfilled with the record we have been presented
with.
Petitioner also argues that respondent’s motion for summary
judgment is premature and that he is entitled to make additional
discovery. In some cases, additional discovery is warranted
before a motion for summary judgment is granted, however, we do
not believe this is such a case. Petitioner did not provide any
explanation as to how additional discovery could be of assistance
to him, nor did he submit an affidavit under Rule 121 setting
forth the reasons why he could not respond to respondent’s motion
without additional discovery.11 Petitioner has made only one
request for discovery. On October 1, 2001, petitioner filed a
request for the following admissions of fact:
1. Do you admit that the February 14, 2001
determination letter signed by Appeals Team Manager,
Robert Spooner, makes the summary statement of
verification of compliance with “all applicable laws
and procedures.”
2. Do you admit that Respondent refuses to provide
Petitioner a copy of the Administrative file which
counsel for Respondent has had to prepare his case?
3. Do you admit that the date of the Notice of Federal
Tax Lien is dated August 14, 2000?
Whether or not these requested admissions are true, we find that
11See also Guthrie v. Sawyer, 970 F.2d 733, 738 (10th Cir.
1992) (interpreting rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure); United States v. McCallum, 970 F.2d 66, 71 (5th Cir.
1992) (same). Rule 121 is in large part derived from F.R.C.P.
56. Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 216 (1986).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011