- 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