Rodolfo Lizcano - Page 9




                                        - 9 -                                         
          initiating the audit, he had failed to prove those charges.                 
          Further, the defendants had with “competent summary judgment                
          evidence” established that “none of them were responsible for the           
          initiation of his federal income tax examination” and that his              
          return was selected for audit by computer and not as a                      
          retaliatory action.  The order states:  “Plaintiff’s own evidence           
          supports Defendants’ claims of non-involvement in the selection             
          of his audit.”  The District Court completely dismissed                     
          petitioner’s suit, including the Bivens claim.  The District                
          Court’s judgment stated:  “IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED             
          that Plaintiff Rodolfo Lizcano TAKE NOTHING against Defendants              
          the United States of America, the Internal Revenue Service, the             
          Department of the Treasury”, and the named individual defendants.           
               On February 7, 2005, respondent filed with this Court a                
          motion for continuance of trial to provide time for petitioner to           
          appeal the District Court case.  This Court granted respondent’s            
          motion.  On August 11, 2005, respondent filed a motion for                  
          summary judgment.  The Tax Court, by order dated August 22, 2005,           
          ordered petitioner to file any response on or before                        
          September 30, 2005.  To date, the Tax Court has not received a              
          response.                                                                   
               The Tax Court, by order dated November 25, 2005, informed              
          both parties that a hearing on respondent’s motion for summary              
          judgment was scheduled for a time and date certain of                       







Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008