- 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