- 5 -
admissions stated that petitioner was in the process of
relocating to Los Angeles and had used his nephew’s mailing
address in New Hampshire and “Regrettably, petitioner’s nephew
was not as dependable in forwarding mail to petitioner, or
alerting petitioner that certain mail existed, as petitioner had
hoped.” Petitioner’s proposed late response to respondent’s
request for admissions denied “that petitioner sold any stocks or
bonds or had any information relating thereto to submit to the
Internal Revenue Service.” Petitioner’s Rule 50(c) statement in
response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment conceded
that “Should the Court deny petitioner’s motion to withdraw the
deemed admissions, petitioner confesses that the deemed
admissions alone are enough to cause the Court to award
respondent summary judgment.”
A hearing was held on respondent’s motion on October 27,
2005, at which time respondent also filed an objection to
petitioner’s motion to withdraw deemed admissions. Respondent’s
objection included as exhibits thereto copies of petitioner’s
2000 and 2001 Forms 1040, and third-party Forms 1099 for 2000 and
2001 reflecting significant unreported gross income of
petitioner. At the close of the hearing by order, the Court
afforded petitioner an opportunity to submit a written response
to respondent’s objection. Petitioner did not file a response.
After reviewing the record of this case, the Court by order dated
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011