- 23 -
details on these matters. Respondent has not directed our
attention to standards for determining what is “an extended
period” under these circumstances. See supra note 14.
Respondent has not told us how long Krogue’s leave was, how long
Krogue was assisting other revenue officers or filling other
roles, and how ICS being down and e-file problems affected
Krogue’s duties. Also, examples 8 and 9 of the regulations,
relating to prioritization of tax return processing and auditing
a tax shelter before auditing an investor in the shelter, are
clearly distinguishable from the activities briefly mentioned in
the materials submitted to us in connection with respondent’s
summary judgment motion.
In order to be entitled to summary judgment respondent must
show “that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.” See
Rule 121(b). Because of the above-described lack of clarity as
to material facts, we conclude that respondent has failed to make
the necessary showing.
Accordingly, we shall deny respondent’s summary judgment
motion as to the managerial act alternative for the second
period.
(3) Third Period (Feb. 26--June 24, 2002)
This period included a number of important dealings between
petitioner and Krogue. Krogue suggested changes to the first
installment proposal to make it more likely to be accepted.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008