- 9 -
of Law in which he repeated many of the allegations in the
petition.
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