- 17 -
respondent may proceed with the collection activities in
question. In the face of the stipulations of settlement, we
vacated our orders granting in whole or in part respondent’s
motions for summary judgment. We accorded each petitioner and
counsel the opportunity to appear and be heard with respect to
our orders to show cause why we should not impose on petitioner a
penalty pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) and impose on counsel
excess costs pursuant to section 6673(a)(2).
Mr. Davis appeared and was heard on February 28, 2006. The
salient points of his testimony are as follows: He did not
recall being advised that, because he received notices of
deficiency, he could not challenge his underlying tax liability
in a section 6330 hearing; he did not carefully review the
amended petitions; Mr. Jones suggested filing the amended
petitions; he did not recall reviewing the oppositions to
respondent’s motions for summary judgment; and he basically
relied on the legal advice of Mr. Jones and Ms. Lacorte in
contesting respondent’s collection actions and in filing his
petitions in these cases. Ms. Davis did not to appear and,
therefore, was not heard.
Victoria Osborn (Ms. Osborn) was called by petitioners and,
in pertinent part, testified as follows: She lives in Colorado
and has a bachelor of science from the University of Colorado,
with concentrations in accounting and finance. Her profession is
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007