- 14 -
defenses of the statute of limitations because, in the first
case, we deemed petitioners to have conceded that defense by not
addressing it in their objection to respondent’s motion for
summary judgment and, in the second case, the claim did not deal
with the year at issue in the case. In docket No. 3405-05L, we
rejected a similar claim with respect to 1996 because we deemed
petitioners likewise to have conceded the claim. We did,
however, deny in part respondent’s motion for summary judgment in
docket No. 3405-05L because of petitioners’ statute of
limitations claim for 1997. Petitioners claimed that respondent
had backdated the assessment of tax for that year, and as a
result, collection of the tax was time barred. Petitioners
supported their claim of backdating by an argument concerning the
“cycle post date” of the assessment. Since that argument was
unclear, but we were concerned that it might involve a material
issue of fact, we declined to adjudicate summarily petitioners’
statute of limitations claim for 1997.
In each of the orders we issued in response to the motions
for summary judgment, we warned petitioners and counsel that we
were considering the imposition of penalties on petitioners
pursuant to section 6673(a)(1) and excess costs on counsel
pursuant to section 6673(a)(2). In those orders, we stated our
impressions that petitioners, aided by counsel, may have (1)
instituted and maintained the proceeding before this Court
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007