Opinion
16399-19
09-02-2021
SOLOMON SAMUEL NEUHARDT, II, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
ORDER
PATRICK J. URDA, JUDGE
This case is currently calendared for trial at the Court's San Diego, California, remote trial session, which is scheduled to begin September 20, 2021.
On August 2, 2021, the Court granted respondent's motion under Rule 91(f), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and ordered petitioner Solomon Neuhardt to file a response in compliance with the provisions of Rule 91(f)(2), with proof of service of a copy thereof on opposing counsel, showing why the matters set forth in the proposed stipulation of facts attached to respondent's motion as Exhibit A should not be deemed admitted for purposes of this case. Rule 91(f)(2) provides that a proper response
shall list each matter involved on which there is no dispute, referring specifically to the numbered paragraphs in the motion to which the admissions relate. Where a matter is disputed only in part, the response shall show the part admitted and the part disputed. Where the responding party is willing to stipulate in whole or in part with respect to any matter in the motion by varying or qualifying a matter in the proposed stipulation, the response shall set forth the variance or qualification and the admission which the responding party is willing to make. Where the response claims that there is a dispute as to any matter in part or in whole, or where the response presents a variance or qualification with respect to any matter in the motion, the response shall show the sources, reasons, and basis on which the responding party relies for that purpose.
On August 22, 2021, Mr. Neuhardt filed a response to motion for Order to Show Cause why proposed facts and evidence should not be accepted as established pursuant to Rule 91(f). In the response, Mr. Neuhardt generally objected on the grounds that he had not refused to stipulate, that he had no further documentation, and that he had already made significant payments to his liability. None of these points suggests that the matters set forth in the proposed stipulation should not be deemed admitted for purposes of this case, and we will accordingly issue an Order deeming the matters stipulated pursuant to Rule 91(f)(3). Mr. Neuhardt's filing indicates that he is responding to respondent's motion but the Court's Order to Show Cause directed Mr. Neuhardt to respond in writing to our Order so we will recharacterize the response as such and deem the Order to Show Cause absolute. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Neuhardt's response to motion for Order to Show Cause why proposed facts and evidence should not be accepted as established pursuant to Rule 91(f), filed August 22, 2021, is hereby recharacterized as Mr. Neuhardt's response to Order to Show Cause served August 2, 2021. It is further
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause under Rule 91(f), served August 2, 2021, is hereby made absolute and the facts and evidence as set forth in respondent's proposed Stipulation of Facts and exhibits 1-J through 10-R, affixed thereto, which are attached to respondent's motion filed July 30, 2021, as Exhibit A, are accepted as established for the purposes of this case.