Laura K. Davis, et al. - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          required to provide documentation verifying that all applicable             
          laws and procedures were followed or to produce petitioner’s                
          individual or business master files.  We cited the following                
          authority specifically holding that an Appeals officer is not               
          required to produce that type of information.  Nestor v.                    
          Commissioner, 118 T.C. 162, 166-167 (2002); Lunsford v.                     
          Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 187-188 (2001); Carrillo v.                     
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-290.  We found petitioner’s claim             
          of bias to be frivolous and unsubstantiated.  We found that,                
          beyond Ms. Davis’s bare assertion that she was entitled to                  
          innocent spouse relief, she had done nothing (e.g., setting forth           
          facts showing a genuine issue for trial) to substantiate a claim            
          to that relief.  In the orders governing the four cases in which            
          we granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment only in part,           
          we denied the motion only with respect to petitioner’s                      
          affirmative defense of the statute of limitations.4  Each of                
          those petitioners based that defense on his claim that respondent           
          had backdated his assessment (or assessments) of tax and, as a              
          result, collection of the tax was time barred.  In turn, each               
          based his claim of backdating on his argument concerning the                
          “cycle post date” of the assessment.  Since that argument was               
          unclear, but we were concerned that it might involve a material             

               4  We determined that petitioner in docket No. 145-05L                 
          conceded that defense because the issue was not addressed in his            
          opposition to the motion for summary judgment.                              

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007