- 21 -
disposing of the motions for summary judgment, we addressed each
item in the catalog of errors and defenses presented in
petitioners’ written responses, and, except with respect to the
affirmative defense of the statute of limitations (with respect
to which, in docket No. 3405-05L, we withheld judgment), we found
that none raised 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 their affirmative defenses of the statute of
limitations, petitioners apparently rely only on the stipulated
fact that Ms. Osborn reviewed petitioners’ records and advised
counsel for petitioners that the assessments were time barred.
The parties have also stipulated that Ms. Osborn is a forensic
accountant and she is not recognized as an enrolled agent before
the IRS. Ms. Osborn did not testify in these cases. Ms. Osborn
did, however, testify in other consolidated cases heard at the
Las Vegas trial session. She testified to nothing more
2(...continued)
Moreover, we believe that the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, where, barring a stipulation to the contrary, any appeal
by petitioner would lie, see sec. 7482(b), would agree. See
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71-72 (7th Cir. 1986) (“The
purpose of §§ 6673 and 6702, like the purpose of Rules 11 and 38
[Fed. R. Civ. P. and Fed. R. App. P., respectively] and of [28
U.S.C.] § 1927, is to induce litigants to conform their behavior
to the governing rules regardless of their subjective beliefs.”).
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007