John T. Higginbotham - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          importance of complying with Rule 91, which requires the parties            
          to stipulate undisputed facts.  Respondent also advised                     
          petitioner of the possibility of a penalty resulting from the               
          initiation of a proceeding for the purposes of delay or to raise            
          frivolous or groundless arguments and the possibility of                    
          dismissal of the case if he did not attend either the scheduled             
          meeting or the June 13, 2005, trial session.  By letter dated               
          June 3, 2005, respondent scheduled a conference with petitioner             
          for June 8, 2005.  The June 3, 2005, letter contained the same              
          warnings as the May 12, 2005, letter.                                       
               On or about June 9, 2005, the parties had a teleconference             
          with the Court.  Petitioner requested that the case be continued            
          again for medical reasons.  The Court advised petitioner to                 
          attend the trial session and warned him that his motion for a               
          second continuance would be denied unless he had not been given             
          an opportunity to present his case before respondent’s Appeals              
          Office.5                                                                    

               5As summarized in both the notice of determination and in              
          attachments to the motion to dismiss, respondent repeatedly                 
          offered petitioner opportunities to meet with respondent and to             
          present information concerning his allegations that collection by           
          levy should not proceed.  As part of a remarkably consistent                
          pattern of nonresponsiveness, petitioner failed to appear at                
          meetings or to respond to requests for information.  Because                
          petitioner failed to meet and present information in support of             
          his contention that collection should not proceed, the Appeals              
          officer assigned to petitioner’s sec. 6330 proceeding determined,           
          after reviewing the administrative record and making the                    
          determinations required by sec. 6330, that collection by levy               
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011