- 11 -
are impermissible “[whipsaws]” with related entities or
individuals; and (6) in docket Nos. 3405-05L and 3490-05L, Mrs.
Gillespie is entitled to “innocent spouse protection”. In each
case, respondent denied those averments.
The amended petitions are substantially similar to petitions
filed by Mr. Jones on behalf of taxpayers in at least six other
cases calendared for trial at the Las Vegas trial session. Five
of those cases are the subject of our report in Davis v.
Commissioner, supra.
Motions for Summary Judgment
On January 17, 2006, respondent moved for summary judgment
in each of the cases. Respondent relied on similar grounds in
support of each motion: Since petitioners had received a notice
of deficiency with respect to the underlying liability or
liabilities (without distinction, liability), they could not
challenge the liability. The settlement officer did not abuse
her discretion in not considering collection alternatives since
petitioners had not presented any collection alternatives.
Indeed, the settlement officer was precluded from considering
collection alternatives since petitioners had failed to satisfy
the necessary prerequisites for such consideration; i.e., they
had neither provided the settlement officer the requisite
collection information nor had they filed their delinquent tax
returns. The settlement officer had accorded petitioners
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007