- 4 -
consider "new evidence" purportedly establishing that petitioner
is not liable for the underlying deficiencies for the years in
issue. In particular, petitioner asserts that he instituted two
civil actions in Florida State court in June 1989 and December
1993 in which the State court recently ruled in his favor on
certain breach of contract claims related to his handling of the
Putman estate. Petitioner contends that these holdings establish
that he did not have the criminal intent to embezzle funds from
the Putman estate.
After filing an answer to the amended petition, respondent
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Respondent maintains that
because petitioner received (and contested) a notice of
deficiency for the years in issue, the question of petitioner's
liability for the underlying taxes cannot be raised in this
proceeding. Petitioner filed a response in opposition to
respondent's motion.
This matter was called for hearing at the Court's motions
session in Washington, D.C., on September 6, 2000. Counsel for
respondent appeared at the hearing and presented argument in
support of respondent's motion. Although no appearance was made
by or on behalf of petitioner at the hearing, petitioner did file
a Rule 50(c) statement with the Court.
Discussion
Section 6331(a) provides that if any person liable to pay
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011