Robert Ho - Page 13

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011