Laura K. Davis, et al. - Page 23
- 23 -
granting in part and denying in part respondent’s motions for
summary judgment in docket Nos. 146-05L and 147-05L, we addressed
each item in the catalog of errors and defenses presented in Mr.
Davis’s written responses, and, except with respect to the
affirmative defense of the statute of limitations (with respect
to which we withheld judgment), we found that he failed to raise
any issue that demonstrates error or abuse of discretion on the
part of the settlement officer. We incorporate herein by this
reference those findings and the analyses supporting them
(summarized supra in our background discussion).
With respect to his affirmative defense of the statute of
limitations, Mr. Davis presents only the testimony of Ms. Osborn.
She testified to nothing more remarkable than that, after an
assessment of tax is made, record of that assessment is posted to
the IRS’ computerized record system. Ms. Osborn’s theory that
assessment predating posting indicates something fraudulent was
rejected by the Magistrate Judge in Dahmer v. United States, 90
AFTR 2d at 2002-6809, 2002-2 USTC par. 50,806 at 86,219, in a
ruling that accepted the Government’s position that:
the Dahmers’ evidence that the June 25, 1993[,]
assessment was entered into the IRS administrative
by petitioner would lie, see sec. 7482(b), would agree. See
Nelson v. United States, 796 F.2d 164, 166 (6th Cir. 1986) (good
faith not a defense to imposition of sec. 6702 penalty for
frivolous income tax return).
Page: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Last modified: November 10, 2007