Opinion
11575-17
07-08-2022
LONY TAP GATWAS, Petitioner(s) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Eunkyong Choi, Special Trial Judge
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Review the Sufficiency of Answers or Objections to Request for Admissions, filed June 28, 2022, which requests an Order pursuant to Rule 90(g).
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
For the reasons set forth below, respondent's motion is granted in part.
Background
On May 6, 2019, respondent filed and served a First Request for Admissions to petitioner pursuant to Rule 90. On June 6, 2019, the Court issued an Order extending petitioner's time to comply with respondent's First Request for Admissions until further order of the Court. On January 18, 2022, petitioner timely filed a Response to First Request for Admissions.
On January 18, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Review the Sufficiency of Answers or Objections to Request for Admissions. Respondent's motion asserted that petitioner had failed to timely respond to respondent's First Request for Admissions. On January 25, 2022, petitioner filed a Response to respondent's motion. On February 17, 2022, respondent filed a Reply further asserting that petitioner's responses were deficient because petitioner denied matters that respondent believed petitioner should have admitted based on the record in petitioner's criminal trial. On May 24, 2022, the Court issued an Order reserving disposition of respondent's January 18, 2022, motion and granting respondent leave to request an order pursuant to Rule 90(g).
In 2017, petitioner was prosecuted for and found guilty of wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and preparing false tax returns for taxable years 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Discussion
Rule 90(c) requires specificity as to a denial of a matter only if such matter is denied in part. The Rule does not prohibit a party from wholly denying a matter without specifying a reason for the denial. See Rule 90(c). A party may wholly deny a matter if the party believes that the matter presents a genuine issue of trial. See id. However, such an outright denial is subject to Rule 90(g), which provides that if a party unjustifiably fails to admit the truth of a matter as requested, the party requesting the admission may apply to the Court for an order imposing such sanction on the other party or the other party's counsel as the Court may find appropriate. Id.; see also Rule 90(g). Such sanctions include but are not limited to the sanctions provided in Title X. Rule 90(g).
Rule 90(g) provides that the Court may sanction a party for unjustifiably failing to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter as requested in accordance with Rule 90 unless
the Court find that: (1) The request was held objectionable pursuant to [Rule 90], (2) the admission sought was of no substantial importance, (3) the party failing to admit had reasonable ground to doubt the truth of the matter or the genuineness of the document in respect of which the admission was sought, or (4) there was other good reason for failure to admit.
Respondent requests that the Court deem admitted the matters asserted in paragraphs 5 through 11, 62, 63, 72 through 79, and 81 through 83 of respondent's First Request for Admissions. The Court finds that regarding paragraphs 5 through 10, 63, 72 through 75, and 77 through 79, none of the justifications for failing to admit the truth of the matters asserted in respondent's requests for admissions are present. Petitioner did not object to any of these requests, the admissions sought are germane to the issues in this case, petitioner has no reason to doubt the truth of the matters asserted, and the Court finds no good reason for petitioner's failure to admit the matters asserted as they are the same as those proved at a criminal trial at which petitioner was found guilty.
In finding that petitioner has no good reason to deny the truth of the matters asserted in respondent's requests as enumerated, the Court considers the principal of collateral estoppel. See, e.g., Voccola v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2009-13. In reviewing request numbers 11, 62, 76, and 81 through 83, the Court does not find a basis for the application of the principal of collateral estoppel.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Review the Sufficiency of Answers or Objections to Request for Admissions, filed June 28, 2022, is granted. It is further
ORDERED that the matters asserted in paragraphs 5 through 10, 63, 72 through 75, and 77 through 79 of respondent's May 6, 2019, First Request for Admissions are deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 90(g). It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Review the Sufficiency of Answers or Objections to Request for Admissions, filed January 18, 2022, is denied as moot.