- 6 -
assess and collect the disputed tax. According to petitioner,
this observation implies that petitioner “intentionally let the
case linger until the statute of limitations would have run” and
conflicts with the Court’s finding in Martin I that petitioner
did not know of the unauthorized petition until the time when he
moved for its dismissal. Again, we disagree with petitioner’s
reading of Martin II. We made no factual finding that petitioner
knew of the unauthorized petition and intentionally left it
pending. Furthermore, our discussion of this particular policy
concern did not use language accusing petitioner of intentionally
attempting to sidestep the limitations period.
As our third error, petitioner contends that, by
acknowledging in footnote 14 the policy implication of the strong
presumption of authority afforded counsel when filing a petition
in this Court, we found that the presumption was not overcome
here, a finding in conflict with Martin I. Petitioner’s
interpretation of our discussion is nonsensical. We did not make
any finding in footnote 14 with respect to whether petitioner
overcame a presumption of authority; moreover, throughout the
opinion, we described the petition’s filing as unauthorized.
II. The Alleged “Material Errors in Analysis of the Cases”
In addition to allegations that we made substantial errors
of fact in Martin II, petitioner alleges that we made material
errors of law. We address petitioner’s allegations below.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011