- 6 -
summary judgment, holding that “petitioner was provided with a
meaningful opportunity for a collection due process hearing in
this case.”
Petitioner’s Motion To Add 1999 Taxable Year to This Proceeding
Respondent’s just-described motion for partial summary
judgment indicated, among other things, that after the filing of
the petition, respondent had offset a $10,633 overpayment from
petitioner’s 1999 income tax account against petitioner’s 1992
tax liability, resulting in full payment of petitioner’s 1992
liability.8 On December 3, 2002, petitioner filed a motion for
leave to amend her petition to add taxable year 1999 to this
proceeding. In her motion, petitioner stated that she had been
“caught by surprise” by the information in respondent’s motion
that respondent had offset her 1999 overpayment against her
alleged 1992 tax liability. By Order dated January 30, 2003,
this Court denied petitioner’s motion for leave to amend her
petition. The Order stated:
Respondent contends, and we agree, that petitioner is
not permitted to dispute in this collection review
proceeding respondent’s application of an overpayment
8 The record does not conclusively establish when the offset
occurred. On brief, respondent proposes as a finding of fact
that the offset occurred on or about May 19, 2001, “subsequent to
the filing of the petition in this case.” (In fact, the original
petition was filed on June 22, 2001.) This proposed finding of
fact appears inconsistent with respondent’s responses to
petitioner’s interrogatories, in which respondent stated that the
offset occurred “during the week beginning October 6, 2002.”
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