- 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