- 13 -
doing better by Lovenguth than moving for a dismissal of the case
for failing to properly prosecute. See generally Levy v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 794 (1986) (discussing effects of case
dismissal).
But we must also look at the process from Lovenguth’s
perspective. And in doing so, we must remember that Lovenguth
has no legal training and is suffering from a weakened mental and
physical condition. This case is not the first time Lovenguth
tried to challenge the IRS in our Court. Some of his attempts
were unsuccessful because he missed deadlines, and when he
learned that his untimeliness was partly responsible for his tax
liability tripling, he was understandably fearful.
The Commissioner nevertheless argues that Lovenguth always
knew that the IRS was his adversary and never believed that he
was being assisted. We agree that Lovenguth did know the IRS was
his adversary in that it was trying to collect a debt from him.
But Lovenguth also knew that the IRS offered help, because he had
actually been referred to the IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate Service at
one time. And so we find it reasonable that Lovenguth believed
that the Commissioner’s counsel was assisting him and not just
playing the role of his adversary.
The Commissioner finally argues that Lovenguth has capacity
to enter into the stipulation because he is “cognizant enough” to
request an abatement of interest. The Commissioner argues that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007