DocketNumber: Docket No. 2088-89
Filed Date: 10/15/1990
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
*588
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The instant case is before us on respondent's motion for summary judgment. Respondent determined the following deficiencies and additions to tax:
Year | Deficiency | 6653(b) | 6653(b)(1) | 6653(b)(2) | 6654 | |||||||||||
1978 | $ 3,885.00 | $ 1,943.00 | $ 124.03 | |||||||||||||
1979 | 2,449.00 | |||||||||||||||
1980 | 2,235.00 | 2,075.00 | ||||||||||||||
1981 | 3,235.00 | 1,618.00 | ||||||||||||||
1982 | 503.00 | $ 3,614.00 | *589 Respondent's motion rests upon a series of statements deemed admitted by petitioner under Rule 90(c) due to her failure to answer or object to respondent's request for admissions. Petitioner also failed to file any response to respondent's motion. Rule 90(f) states, "Any matter admitted under this Rule is conclusively established unless the Court on motion permits withdrawal or modification of the admission." Thus, for purposes of the instant proceeding, the deemed admissions procured by respondent under Rule 90 are conclusively established. Except where we indicate otherwise, we adopt the admissions as our own findings, and they are incorporated herein by this reference. Under Rule 121(b), summary judgment is appropriate "if the*590 pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law." See In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, we construe the pertinent material in a manner most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment is sought. Moreover, summary judgment on the issue of fraud is appropriate where respondent's affirmative allegations of fraud are supported by deemed admissions. In the instant case, petitioner's deemed admissions resolve all material issues of fact and support the deficiencies and additions to tax determined by respondent. Petitioner resided in New York, New York, when she filed her petition in the instant case. Petitioner was a private duty nurse during each of the years in issue. She performed private duty nursing services for compensation at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York Hospital, and Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital (the hospitals), where she obtained assignments through the Yale Registry for*592 Nurses (the Registry). Patients at the hospitals paid fees to petitioner directly, and petitioner, in turn, paid five percent of such fees to the Registry as a commission. In order to conceal her true income, petitioner did not report to the Registry all of the work assignments she received. Records of the Registry, the hospitals, and petitioner's patients show that petitioner received the following amounts of income from private duty nursing:
Petitioner did not file a return for the taxable year 1978, and thus did not report $ 19,183.00 of income for that year. Petitioner failed to file her income tax returns for taxable years 1979, 1980, and 1982 in a timely manner. The returns for those years were not filed until April 18, 1986, after petitioner was charged with criminal failure to file her 1979, 1980, and 1982 returns. In her returns for taxable years 1980 and 1982, petitioner failed to report $ 7,210.00 and $ 1,237.00, respectively, of the income set forth above. Petitioner filed her 1981 return in a timely manner but she failed*593 to report $ 12,020.00 of the income set forth above. Petitioner was charged by information on April 8, 1986, with criminal failure to file her 1979, 1980, and 1982 tax returns, in violation of section 7203. Petitioner pled guilty to the charge with respect to her 1982 tax return, in violation of section 7203, in the Federal District Court of the Southern Judicial District of New York on April 23, 1986. Petitioner was sentenced on June 26, 1986, to one year of probation and 300 hours of community service. Based upon the foregoing deemed admissions, we find that respondent has satisfied his burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to respondent's deficiency determinations as a matter of law. Consequently, we grant respondent's motion with respect to the deficiencies. As noted above, summary judgment with respect to the fraud additions may be appropriate where supported by deemed admissions. Respondent may use circumstantial evidence to carry his burden of proving fraud. Furthermore, the deemed admissions establish that petitioner failed to maintain complete and accurate records of her income-producing activities and failed to produce complete and accurate records to respondent in connection with the examination of petitioner's tax liability for the taxable years in issue. Petitioner falsely stated to respondent's agents that she had lost her business records during travel from New York, New York toJamaica, West Indies to visit her ill mother, during the years in issue. Petitioner subsequently admitted that her mother died in 1976 or 1977, and that the last time she visited Jamaica, West Indies, was in 1978. Petitioner also falsely stated that her business records were stored in the basement of her residence at 225 East 72nd Street, New York, New York. Additionally, petitioner falsely stated that her business records were*597 stored in the basement of the residence of Hilda Newman, at 8301 Homelawn Street, Jamaica, New York, at a time when that residence was in fact destroyed by fire. We find that petitioner's deemed admissions justify summary judgment upholding the additions sought by respondent under sections 6653(b), 6653(b)(1) and (b)(2) as a matter of law. We therefore grant respondent's motion with respect to the additions to tax for fraud for each of the taxable years in issue. Finally, petitioner did not make the required estimated payments for taxable year 1978. Summary judgment therefore is appropriate for the addition sought by respondent under section 6654 for taxable year 1978 and will be granted. To reflect the foregoing, FootnotesAuthorities (4)United States v. Diebold, Inc. ( 1962 ) Robert W. Bradford v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1986 ) John L. Stephenson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1984 ) the-hicks-co-inc-etc-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-thomas ( 1972 ) Copyright © 2025 by eLaws. All rights reserved.
|