- 6 -
River, Arizona.4 In the petition, petitioner largely repeated
contentions made in his Form 12153 and additionally assigned
error on the grounds that he was prohibited from recording the
collection hearing. Petitioner then prayed that this Court issue
an order requiring respondent to show cause why the determination
should not be vacated; find the determination arbitrary,
capricious, not supported by the evidence, an abuse of
discretion, and contrary to law; vacate the March 11, 2003,
determination; and award petitioner costs and fees incurred in
the prosecution of this action.5
On September 20, 2004, respondent filed a motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Rule 121. Petitioner was directed to file
any response to respondent’s motion on or before October 1, 2004.
However, upon review of the record, the Court noted certain
internal inconsistencies that rendered summary judgment
inappropriate.6 By order dated September 30, 2004, the Court
4 Petitioner initially filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona on Apr. 10, 2003. The
complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
on Jan. 21, 2004. Petitioner’s petition to this Court arrived in
an envelope bearing a postmark of Feb. 20, 2004. See sec.
6330(d)(1).
5 The Court notes that to the extent that the petition seeks
reasonable administrative and/or litigation costs pursuant to
sec. 7430, any such claim is premature and will not be further
addressed. See Rule 231.
6 Principally, the exhibits accompanying respondent’s motion
for summary judgment contained conflicting dates for issuance of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011