- 28 -
statements about matters of fact necessary to justify the
granting of summary judgment to respondent. The same absence of
information would require us to deny a deemed cross-motion.
Under these circumstances, it would be fruitless for us to go
through the detailed analysis necessary for a deemed cross-motion
for summary judgment.
(2) Deceit
In his response to respondent’s summary judgment motion,
petitioner charged that his overpayment of interest “was directly
attributable to unreasonable errors, deceit, and dilatory
performance of managerial and ministerial acts by IRS officers
acting in their official capacities.” We note that petitioner
did not include the “deceit” contention in his later memorandum.
To make the matter clear, we have examined the material before us
and we conclude that this material does not show that Krogue,
Rogers, or any other IRS employee or official committed any act
of deceit against petitioner in the instant case.
(3) Petitioner’s Responsibility
Respondent contends that “Petitioner was solely responsible
for the delay in paying the taxes due per his tax return”. This
contention is intended to invoke the statutory provision that “an
error or delay shall be taken into account only if no significant
aspect of such error or delay can be attributed to the taxpayer
involved”. Sec. 6404(e)(1) (final flush language).
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008