Gerald H. Klawonn - Page 7

                                        - 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              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011