- 4 -
The parties do not dispute that neither Mr. Davis nor Dr.
Rinker timely responded to respondent’s requests for admission.
Counsel for Dr. Rinker did eventually serve a response to the
requests for admission. The response was, as Dr. Rinker
admitted, untimely.
Under Rule 90, a party may serve upon an opposing party a
written request to admit the truth of any matters that relate to
statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to
fact. Estate of Allensworth v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 33 (1976);
Hersch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-222. Each matter is
deemed admitted unless the party to whom the request is directed
serves a response on the requesting party within 30 days after
the date of service of the request, or within such shorter or
longer time as the Court may allow. Rule 90(c). When a matter
is admitted, whether deemed admitted or actually admitted, it is
conclusively established for the purposes of the pending case
unless the Court on motion permits withdrawal or modification of
the admission. Rule 90(f).
In her posttrial brief, Dr. Rinker argued that the Court
should extend petitioners’ time for responding to respondent’s
requests. Dr. Rinker argued that the Tax Court traditionally
looks to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when interpreting
its own Rules of Practice and Procedure and that under the
Federal rules the period otherwise prescribed for responding to a
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