- 13 -
backdated. Mr. Jones and Ms. Lacorte signed all of the
objections.
Orders Disposing of Motions for Summary Judgment and Motion for
Penalty
On February 15, 2006, we issued orders granting in full the
motions for summary judgment in docket Nos. 3489-05L and 3490-05L
and granting in part the motion for summary judgment in docket
No. 3405-05L. In substantial part, the orders are similar. In
each, we concluded that petitioners were prohibited from
challenging the underlying liability. We concluded that the
settlement officer did not abuse her discretion in failing to
consider collections alternatives since, although given adequate
time to do so, petitioners had failed to present collection
alternatives or provide the collection information and delinquent
returns that are a prerequisite to Appeals’ consideration of
collection alternatives. We rejected petitioners’ claim that the
settlement officer was required to provide them copies of their
individual master file and other documents. 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 petitioners’ claim
of bias to be frivolous and unsubstantiated. In docket Nos.
3489-05L and 3490-05L, we rejected petitioners’ affirmative
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007