Opinion
10856-20
04-09-2024
YUN FONG CHANG, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
RONALD L. BUCH JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Reply to Response to Response to First Request for Admissions filed April 5, 2024. The Commissioner objects. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the Motion.
The parties' dispute is over how the Commissioner went about making his request for admissions. On February 21, 2024, the Commissioner filed with the Court and served a First Request for Admissions along with attachments. On March 22, 2024, Petitioner filed a Response to First Request for Admissions that largely objected to the requests, not on their substance, but on the Commissioner's alleged failure to consult about the requests. Petitioner provided a specific denial as to paragraphs 129 through 139 of the requested admissions. Those requests relate to amounts of gross receipts for China Dragon Restaurant for tax years 2007 through 2017. The other requests appear to be statements that could easily be admitted or denied.
We appreciate petitioner's objections. Our Rule makes clear that "the Court expects the parties to attempt to attain the objectives of such a request through informal consultation or communication before utilizing the procedures provided in this Rule [90]." Rule 90(a). Status reports and motions leading up to now informed the Court that: "Petitioner needs additional time to prepare the returns;" that Petitioner was "still waiting for the accountant to provide the completed returns and the underlying documentation;" that "The parties are in the process of negotiating a potential settlement;" that "The parties have reached a potential settlement." that petitioner's counsel was "awaiting a response from petitioner as to acceptance of the proposed stipulated decision;" that "more time was necessary for the parties to engage in settlement discussions;" and finally that "The parties have been unable to reach a settlement in this case."
While all of this was occurring, according to petitioner, "the parties have had no discussions- nor has Respondent attempted to hold any discussions-related to determining facts in this matter." But settlements are not negotiated in a factual vacuum. The Commissioner's observed as much by quoting from the exchanges of information in pursuit of settlement (e.g., "If you believe the RA's bank deposit analysis overstates the taxpayer's income, please provide us with evidence of any nontaxable deposits or expenses to offset the taxpayer's income.")
Under Rule 90(c), each matter within a request for admissions is deemed admitted unless, within 30 days, the answering party specifically denies the matter or objects. From the limited information before the Court, it does not appear that petitioner's objection is well founded. Thus, except for paragraphs 129 through 139, we will deem each of the matters from the First Request for Admissions to have been admitted. We will provide petitioner a limited opportunity to seek relief from this Order. To that end, it is
ORDERED that each of the statements in the Commissioner's First Request for Admissions, filed February 21, 2024, is deemed admitted EXCEPT for requests 129 through 139. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner may move to be relieved of these deemed admissions by April 26, 2024. Any such motion shall be directed at the substance of each request for which relief is sought.