- 8 -
respondent abused his discretion by exercising it arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. Woodral v.
Commissioner, supra at 23; Mailman v. Commissioner, supra at
1084; see also sec. 6404(h)(1); Rule 142(a).
In his response in opposition to respondent’s motion,
petitioner asserted that he was the subject of an abusive,
duplicitous, bad faith, and racist audit conducted to intimidate
him and to discover assets belonging to his family. However,
petitioner did not set forth specific facts in or attach any
documents to his response that showed a genuine issue of material
fact for trial. Instead, petitioner rested on the allegations in
his petition and in his response. Such allegations are simply
not enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment. See Rule
121(d).
Petitioner’s factual assertions do not establish that there
is any dispute about a material fact in this interest abatement
proceeding. At best, petitioner’s allegations reflect a concern
that his audit was improperly motivated. However, petitioner
does not make any allegation of improper motivation regarding
respondent’s attempt to collect interest. In fact, petitioner
agreed to the deficiency and stipulated that interest would be
assessed on the deficiency. Petitioner has not alleged any facts
to support a finding of unreasonable error or delay in payment
that is attributable to an officer or employee of respondent’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007