Opinion
12709-20
09-15-2022
JOHN DAVID BLACK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On August 29, 2022, respondent filed a Motion for Entry of Order That Undenied Allegations Be Deemed Admitted Pursuant to Rule 37(c), requesting that the affirmative allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the first amended answer, filed June 24, 2022, be deemed admitted.
When, as here, respondent in his answer has made affirmative allegations on which respondent has the burden of proof, Rule 37(a) and (b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, provides that a petitioner shall have the opportunity to file a Reply. Rule 37(c) states in relevant part:
In view of respondent's above-referenced motion, we will direct petitioner to file a reply to respondent's first amended answer. In relevant part, Rule 37(b) states:
That reply, in response to each of respondent's material allegations and the facts in support thereof in such answer shall contain a specific admission or denial; however, if the petitioner shall be without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation, then the petitioner shall so state, and such statement shall have the effect of a denial. In addition, the reply shall contain a clear and concise statement of every ground, together with the facts in support thereof, on which the petitioner relies affirmatively or in avoidance of any matter in the answer on which the Commissioner has the burden of proof.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that, on or before October 27, 2022, petitioner shall file a Reply to the affirmative allegations in paragraph 8 (including subparts) of respondent's first amended answer, pursuant to Rule 37(a) and (b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure (which are available under "Rules & Guidance" on the Court's website, www.ustaxcourt.gov). If petitioner does not file a reply as directed herein, the Court will grant respondent's above-referenced motion and pursuant to Rule 37(c) deem admitted for purposes of this case the affirmative allegations set forth in paragraph 8 (including subparts).