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: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Last modified: November 10, 2007