- 7 -
petitioner had continued to fail to produce all the information
needed to determine if petitioner is entitled to an OIC. In
response, petitioner stated that he had “one more document to
present”. When queried by the Court as to what that might be, he
replied: “It’s my latest offer and compromise.” Petitioner also
argued that he is disputing the underlying tax because he
disagrees with, apparently, the assessed accuracy-related
penalty.
The Court denied petitioner’s motion for remand, took
respondent’s motion under advisement, and allowed petitioner 30
days in which to submit a response to respondent’s motion that
would show the Court that there is a material issue for trial.
Discussion
Respondent reasons that because the only issue that
petitioner raised at the hearing under sections 6320 and 6330 was
with respect to an alternative collection method, an OIC, the
requirements for which were never fulfilled, respondent is
entitled to a ruling in his favor as a matter of law.
Petitioner’s argument now appears to be focused on disputing
the underlying tax liability.
Summary Judgment
The standard for granting a motion for summary judgment
under Rule 121 is stated in paragraph (b) of the Rule as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011