Vermouth v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held: Where respondent failed to file an answer within 60 days from the service of the petition, as required by Rule 36(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and within an additional 60 days permitted by the Court pursuant to an uncontested motion, and where the failure was due to bureaucratic inertia and was not due to circumstances beyond respondent's control, a preclusion order will be entered permitting respondent to file an answer out of time, but striking any…
Read the full summary
Held: Where respondent failed to file an answer within 60 days from the service of the petition, as required by Rule 36(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and within an additional 60 days permitted by the Court pursuant to an uncontested motion, and where the failure was due to bureaucratic inertia and was not due to circumstances beyond respondent's control, a preclusion order will be entered permitting respondent to file an answer out of time, but striking any matters contained in the answer affirmatively alleging tax fraud. Respondent will not be permitted to introduce evidence…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NlMS, Judge:
This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion to extend the time in which to file answer, petitioner’s notice of objection and request for sanctions, and respondent’s motion to file answer out of time. Pursuant to an order, an evidentiary hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, on January 28, 1987.
Factual Background
A timely petition was filed on July 18, 1985, and was served on respondent on August 7, 1985. Petitioner resided in Dublin, California, at the time his petition was filed. On October 7, 1985, respondent moved to extend for 60 days the time within…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Helvering v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Rowlee v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1983
- In the Matter of the Complaint of the United States of America, as Owner of the United States Naval Ship Pvt. Joseph F. Merrell, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Ltd., Etc., Defendants- in the Matter of the Complaint of the United States of America, as Owner of the United States Naval Ship Pvt. Joseph F. Merrell, for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability, United States of America v. United States Naval Ship Pvt. Joseph F. Merrell and the Vessel "Pearl Venture", United States of America, Counter/claimant-Appellant v. The M/v Pearl Venture, Her Engines, Tackle, Etc., in Rem and Pearl Carriers, Inc., Defendants/counterclaim Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., a Corp., Plaintiffs v. Pearl Carriers, Inc., and the Vessel Pearl Venture, United States of America v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- Dusha v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- George J. Fox and Ruth A. Fox v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Betz v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Zackim v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Waterman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Lewis v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Manzoli v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1989
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.