- 7 -
which petitioner is entitled. Therefore, we have no deemed
admissions relating to those matters. Further, in his motion for
summary judgment, although respondent seeks summary judgment as
to the bottom line tax deficiencies and the additions to tax he
determined against petitioner, respondent does not mention
specifically petitioner’s filing status nor the number of
exemptions to which petitioner is entitled. Accordingly, those
matters would appear to be still in issue, and summary judgment
would be premature with regard thereto.
With regard to the additions to tax determined by respondent
in respondent’s notices of deficiency, respondent in his motion
for summary judgment specifically refers to and asserts
petitioner’s liability for each of the additions to tax. By
attachments to his Rule 91(f) motion and to his motion for
summary judgment, respondent establishes petitioner’s failure to
file his 1997, 1998, and 2000 Federal income tax returns, and
respondent establishes the Federal income taxes withheld from
petitioner’s wages with regard to his 1997, 1998, and 2000
Federal income tax liabilities.
In his response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment,
petitioner gives no explanation as to why his 1997, 1998, and
2000 Federal income tax returns were not timely filed and as to
why there were underpayments of his 1997 and 1998 Federal
estimated income taxes. Respondent has met his burden of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011