- 11 -
determination indicated that “[e]conomic considerations, abuse
indications, and compliance factors” were considered and were
deemed sufficient to support the proposed settlement.
The notice determination explained that Tomi could proceed
to trial either if she disagreed with the decision or if Stanley
objected. The notice determination also mentioned that the case
was scheduled for trial during the week of January 12, 2004.
Appeals Officer Baty sent the notice determination to
Stanley’s counsel as well. Stanley’s counsel was also provided
with a copy of the notice determination and other items in the
administrative record at a conference on December 10, 2003, with
respondent’s counsel in preparation of trial.
Trial on the Section 6015 Claim
Stanley’s counsel stated at trial that Stanley did not
object to Tomi’s amending the petition to seek relief from joint
liability but that Stanley seeks to object now to respondent’s
determination that Tomi qualifies for partial relief. At the
trial, Appeals Officer Baty authenticated the administrative file
and the entire administrative file was admitted into evidence.
Appeals Officer Baty testified and explained the factors he
considered in deciding to grant Tomi equitable relief under
section 6015(f). Stanley neither testified nor refuted any of
Appeals Officer Baty’s statements. Stanley only questioned 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