- 13 -
for summary judgment. In his Rule 50(c) statement, petitioner
argued on procedural grounds that respondent is obliged to file
an answer regardless of whether the Court grants the motion for
leave.
With respect to respondent’s motion for summary judgment,
petitioner’s Rule 50(c) statement did not challenge the merits of
the motion but rather asserted on procedural grounds that the
motion would be premature under Rule 121 if the Court granted
petitioner’s motion to remove small tax case designation because
respondent would be required to file an answer.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took
petitioner’s motion for leave to file second amended petition and
respondent’s motion for summary judgment under advisement.
Supplement To Respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgement
On November 30, 2005, respondent filed a Supplement To
Respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment.
In the supplement, respondent contends that petitioner may
not raise in this proceeding the issues with respect to “whether
interest and penalties were correctly computed and whether
reasonable cause exists to waive the assertion of penalties”
because petitioner failed to raise these issues during the CDP
hearing.
In light of petitioner’s allegation in his proposed second
amended petition concerning the addition to tax under “section
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011