- 7 -
hearing and gave him a copy of the Form 4340 at the hearing. As
stated above, it was not an abuse of discretion for the Appeals
officer to rely on the Form 4340; thus, the Appeals officer did
not abuse his discretion in providing petitioner a copy of the
Form 4340 but not the Form 23 C. See Lunsford v. Commissioner,
supra; Nicklaus v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner has not
stated which other documents he requested or indicated how he was
prejudiced as a result of not receiving them.1
4. Conclusion
As stated above, no genuine issues of material fact are in
dispute. The above discussion rejects all the grounds upon which
petitioner relied in his petition and in his argument in response
to respondent's motion for summary judgment.2 For the reasons
1 Petitioner filed motions for continuance and to compel
production of documents on January 17, 2002. Petitioner’s
request for documents includes: The substitute for return filed
for petitioner by respondent, a copy of the Revenue Agent Report,
the name, address, and telephone number of the person who
prepared the substitute return, the statute and/or portion of the
Internal Revenue Manual authorizing preparation of the substitute
return and the delegation of authority to the person who prepared
it, and a copy of Form 23 C. The documents petitioner requested
are not related to any genuine issues in dispute, and suggest
that any further discovery would be for purposes of delay.
Accordingly, we denied petitioner’s motions for continuance and
to compel production of documents.
2 At the Appeals hearing, petitioner also sought to raise
the argument that his wife should be granted relief from
liability as an innocent spouse under sec. 6015. The Appeals
officer did not consider that issue because Mrs. Klawonn had not
requested a hearing. Petitioner made no claim in his petition
regarding that issue, and so we have not considered it further
here.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011