- 10 -
subserve the presentation of the merits of the case, and (2) if
the party obtaining the admission (respondent in this case) fails
to satisfy the Court that the withdrawal or modification will
prejudice him in prosecuting his case or defense on the merits.
Petitioner did not move for relief from the deemed admissions at
any time before or during trial. Petitioner requested relief
from the deemed admissions for the first time in its posttrial
brief.
Petitioner’s agent, Dolores Rudd, who testified for
petitioner at trial, attempted to explain petitioner’s failure to
file a timely response. The explanation was conclusory and
unconvincing and did not establish the elements for relief
required by Rule 90. Because we find that respondent reasonably
relied upon the deemed admissions and that withdrawal of the
deemed admissions would not foster presentation of the merits and
would unfairly prejudice respondent, we shall deny petitioner’s
belated request for relief from the deemed admissions. See
Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 819 (1985); Morrison v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 644, 649-650 (1983).
II. Classification of Petitioner’s Workers
A. Burden of Proof
Ordinarily, the Commissioner’s determination is presumed to
be correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the
determination is erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007