- 11 - record presented, we sustain those determinations5 except to the 5In petitioner’s response, petitioner does not dispute respondent’s determinations that it has deficiencies in tax for the years at issue. In fact, petitioner admits in that response that “There clearly are monies due and owing the IRS which the petitioner admits to and wants to settle.” Petitioner’s response, however, does not address the balance of the issues presented in respondent’s motion. To illustrate, petitioner’s response states in part: The respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment based upon lack of response and stated allegations and to this end I (we) request that you consider mitigating circumstances, as follows: 1. Petitioner does not have funds to hire legal counsel needed to prepare briefs and re- sponses to motions. 2. Petitioner records were destroyed in a flood August 22, 2002, at a warehouse facility in Glenview, Illinois. 3. Petitioner sustained a disabling injury re- sulting in two (2) surgeries to his left foot with continuing care through Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Petitioner requests the court to consider the six (6) year delay during which the IRS did not assess outstanding taxes. 5. In excess of 80% of amounts due and owing IRS are accrued interest and penalties resulting from the IRS admitting to losing/misplacing Mr. Duncan’s and Duncan & Associates’ files. 6. Petitioner and legal counsel Mr. Fred Fore- man, former U.S. attorney for the 7th Dis- trict, requested on numerous occasions amounts due and owing the IRS for tax years 1990 and 1991 only to be told that cases involving fraud or allegations of fraud could not be paid until concluded. [Reproduced literally.] We note that the so-called mitigating circumstances quoted above in paragraph 2 of petitioner’s response is inconsistent with petitioner’s petition in which petitioner alleges that its (continued...)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