Robert R. Villwock - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          of Law in which he repeated many of the allegations in the                  
               Petitioner’s motion to dismiss was called for hearing at the           
          Court’s motions session in Washington, D.C.  Counsel for                    
          respondent appeared and was heard.  There was no appearance by or           
          on behalf of petitioner.  By order dated November 21, 2001, the             
          Court denied petitioner’s motion.                                           
               G.  Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment                           
               As stated, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment              
          and to impose a penalty under I.R.C. section 6673.  Respondent              
          contends that petitioner is barred under section 6330(c)(2)(B)              
          from challenging the existence or amount of his underlying tax              
          liability in this proceeding because petitioner received a notice           
          of deficiency for the tax in question.  Respondent also contends            
          that the Appeals officer’s review of transcripts from                       
          respondent’s computer systems, including the literal transcript             
          dated February 6, 2001, and the Form 4340, dated September 12,              
          2001, satisfied the verification requirement of section                     
          6330(c)(1).  Finally, respondent contends that petitioner’s                 
          behavior warrants the imposition of a penalty under section 6673.           
               By notice of filing dated April 4, 2002, the Court notified            
          petitioner of the filing of respondent’s motion for summary                 
          judgment and directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to           
          respondent’s motion on or before April 25, 2002.  The Court did             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011