- 15 -
proceeding that is frivolous or groundless, or unreasonably
failed to pursue administrative remedies.
While we acknowledge respondent’s concerns regarding
petitioner’s arguments in this case, we are unable to conclude on
this record that petitioner instituted or maintained these
proceedings primarily for delay or that petitioner unreasonably
failed to pursue available administrative remedies. Petitioner
timely filed her petition in this case and has not taken any
steps to unduly prolong this proceeding. She has responded to
this Court’s orders by filing a timely response to respondent’s
motion, and she has even prepared and submitted a trial
memorandum required by the Court’s standing pretrial order issued
on October 10, 2002. In addition, at the administrative level,
petitioner made several attempts to communicate with respondent
although the letters that she sent were confused, uninformative,
and not helpful in determining whether a levy was an appropriate
collection activity. The letters reflected a profound confusion
on the part of petitioner regarding her entitlement to refunds
and credits arising from such things as the personal exemption
and the credit for the disabled and elderly. We are not prepared
on this record to equate petitioner’s apparent confusion with a
deliberate attempt on her part to delay or obfuscate.
We also note that the record fails to establish that all of
petitioner’s claims were frivolous or groundless. While
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