- 27 -
petitioners' theory at trial regarding an alleged administrative
policy that required petitioner to retire in order to receive the
Transfer Refund.15 Accordingly, we do not comprehend how
decision in this case could have been entered pursuant to any
motion for summary judgment.
In view of the foregoing, we reject petitioners' second
contention.
G. Respondent's Collection Activity
Finally, petitioners contend that respondent was
unreasonable in pursuing collection of the assessed deficiencies,
at least after the Court of Appeals decided Adler v.
Commissioner, 86 F.3d 378 (4th Cir. 1996).
We begin by recalling that petitioners did not file a bond
to stay assessment and collection when they filed their notice of
appeal. Accordingly, respondent was permitted, by law, to assess
and collect the deficiencies in income and excise taxes as
15 The pages of objections in each party's post-trial
brief to the other party's proposed findings of fact demonstrate
the parties' perception that more than a pure issue of law was
involved in this case.
We also note that the day after petitioners' counsel entered
his appearance in this case, petitioners commenced formal
discovery against respondent. Again, such action demonstrates
petitioners' perception that more than a pure issue of law was
involved in this case.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011