-4-
paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 of respondent’s answer. Rule 37(c);
see Doncaster v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 334, 336 (1981); Gilday v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 260, 261 (1974). The deemed admissions
procured by respondent under Rule 37(c) are conclusively
established. Petitioner did not move to withdraw the deemed
admissions at any time during the proceeding, nor did he present
any evidence that would tend to refute the admissions. Except
where we indicate otherwise, we adopt those admissions as our own
findings and incorporate them herein by this reference.
Petitioner was uncooperative with respondent in respondent’s
attempts to create a stipulation of facts.4 On November 3, 2006,
the Court deemed stipulated respondent’s proposed stipulation of
facts for purposes of this case pursuant to Rule 91(f)(3). The
stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated
herein by this reference.
On November 13, 2006, respondent filed an amendment to his
answer, which alleged that petitioner received additional
unreported income based on respondent’s bank deposits analysis
4On Sept. 29, 2006, respondent filed a motion to show cause
why respondent’s proposed stipulation of facts should not be
accepted as established under Rule 91(f). The Court granted the
motion to show cause, ordering petitioner to file a response on
or before Oct. 23, 2006. Petitioner filed both a response and a
supplemental response to the order to show cause. In his
responses, petitioner objected to nearly all of the stipulations
and proposed exhibits, asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination. The Court again found this argument
meritless. Petitioner did not respond to the substance of the
proposed stipulations or exhibits.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007