- 3 -
respect to the underlying merits of respondent’s determination.
In effect, petitioner was seeking a dismissal of this case as a
sanction against respondent. After considering the parties’
written positions, the Court denied petitioner’s motion for
summary judgment by a June 25, 2007, order.
Petitioner also served respondent with a request for
admissions, and respondent responded. At about the same time,
respondent’s motion to show cause why proposed facts in evidence
should not be accepted as established under Rule 91(f) was filed
on June 1, 2007, and on June 5, 2007, the Court issued an order
to show cause why said facts should not be deemed stipulated
under Rule 91(f). Petitioner failed to respond, and the order to
show cause was made absolute by order dated July 25, 2007. The
facts deemed stipulated support respondent’s position that his
determination is not in error.
Respondent’s attorney and Appeals officer made numerous
attempts to contact petitioner for purposes of normal pretrial
preparation and/or settlement of the case. Petitioner was
recalcitrant and refused to speak with respondent’s employees.
Petitioner sent respondent a final offer to resolve the case and
thereafter, on July 10, 2007, the Court received and filed
“PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF REFUSAL TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF COURT’S
DOCUMENTS”. Attached to petitioner’s notice was a letter to the
Clerk of the Tax Court dated July 5, 2007, returning “unopened
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008