Leigh Gill f.k.a. Tammy L. Gill - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
          deficiency by $1,190).4  Respondent attached the notice of                  
          deficiency and petitioner’s 1997 return, which included the                 
          three-page letter from petitioner and the two Forms W-2, to the             
          answer.                                                                     
               By notice dated January 18, 2001, the Court set this case              
          for trial at the Court’s Anchorage, Alaska, session beginning               
          June 18, 2001.  This notice specifically stated:  “YOUR FAILURE             
          TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND ENTRY OF                  
          DECISION AGAINST YOU.”                                                      
               On February 12, 2001, respondent filed a motion for entry of           
          order that undenied allegations in answer be deemed admitted                
          (respondent’s second motion).  That same day, the Court ordered             
          petitioner to file a reply, as required by Rule 37(a) and (b), on           
          or before February 26, 2001.  The Court advised petitioner that             
          if she did not file a reply, as directed, the Court would grant             
          respondent’s second motion and would deem admitted the                      
          affirmative allegations in the answer.                                      
               On March 13, 2001, after having received no response from              
          petitioner, the Court granted respondent’s second motion and                
          ordered that the undenied allegations set forth in the answer be            
          deemed admitted.                                                            
               By notice dated June 7, 2001, the Court notified the parties           



               4  Respondent did not allege an increase in the accuracy-              
          related penalty.                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011