Kevin and Bridget Naughton - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          party, the opposing party may not rest upon mere allegations or             
          denials contained in that party’s pleadings but must, by                    
          affidavits or otherwise, set forth specific facts showing that              
          there is a genuine issue for trial.  Rule 121(d).                           
               Furthermore, it is well established in this Court that                 
          summary judgment is appropriate where facts deemed admitted                 
          pursuant to Rule 90, for failure properly to respond to requests            
          for admission, support a finding that there is no genuine issue             
          of material fact.  Morrison v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 644, 651               
          (1983); Shepherd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-555; Parker v.            
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-196.  We are satisfied that the               
          foregoing situation exists here and, for the reasons detailed               
          below, will grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment.                 
          II.  Validity of the Deficiency Notice                                      
               As a threshold matter, we briefly address a procedural                 
          contention raised in petitioners’ opposition.  Petitioners argue            
          that the notice of deficiency issued in this case is legally                
          defective and fatally flawed.  In support of this position,                 
          petitioners rely principally on Scar v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d              
          1363 (9th Cir. 1987), revg. 81 T.C. 855 (1983).  Although their             
          argument is less than entirely clear from their submissions,                
          petitioners apparently are of the opinion that the circumstances            
          of this case show a failure by respondent to examine the returns            
          and thereby determine a deficiency as required by Scar v.                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011