- 7 -
account of the refusal to permit recording of the collection
hearing, the underlying notice of determination should be vacated
and her case remanded. She asked that the Court deny
respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The response was filed
for the record, and the case proceeded to trial.
The case was called from the calendar of the trial session
of the Court in Phoenix, Arizona, on October 18, 2004.
Petitioner at that time submitted a pretrial memorandum that
incorporated by reference the legal arguments stated in
petitioner’s earlier response to respondent’s motion for summary
judgment but offered no additional reasoning. At the calendar
call, the Court explained to petitioner that she would be
afforded an opportunity in a recorded proceeding before the Court
to raise any issues or arguments that she wished to make
concerning the notice of determination. The Court also warned
petitioner, however, to take careful heed of the October 4, 2004,
order and to ensure that any such arguments were not frivolous in
nature.
The case was thereafter heard on October 20, 2004.
Petitioner did not offer any evidence or testimony, and her
comments were limited to vague assertions that the Forms 4340
should not be treated as conclusive proof, that she did not
receive the notices of assessment, and that the case should be
sent back for a recorded hearing. Counsel for respondent at this
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