- 6 -
judgment. Respondent was not moving for summary judgment as to
the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662. In addition,
respondent notified the Court that Tomi had filed a claim for
relief under section 6015 and that the summary judgment motion
did not include Tomi’s request for relief under section 6015.
The Court granted respondent’s motion as to the $11,756
deficiency but denied the motion as to the accuracy-related
penalty in an Order dated March 14, 2003. The Court did not
specifically mention Tomi’s request for relief under section 6015
in the Order, but the Court restored the case to the general
docket for trial or other disposition.
Amended Petition To Add Claim for Relief
On May 19, 2003, Tomi filed a pleading entitled a motion for
leave to file an amendment to the petition, which motion embodied
an amendment to the petition in which Tomi claimed relief under
section 6015. A copy of the motion and the proposed amendment
was served on Stanley through his counsel and on respondent.
Neither respondent nor Stanley objected to the motion to amend
the petition. The Court granted the motion to amend the petition
to add Tomi’s claim under section 6015 on June 19, 2003.
Appeals Determination
Appeals Officer Robert Baty (Appeals Officer Baty) of
respondent’s Oklahoma City office received the administrative
innocent spouse case file on October 17, 2003. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011