                         T.C. Memo. 2005-142



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                JULIAN W. MANDODY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 8822-03L.               Filed June 20, 2005.


     Julian W. Mandody, pro se.

     Francis C. Mucciolo, for respondent.



                         MEMORANDUM OPINION


     VASQUEZ, Judge:    This case is before the Court on

respondent’s motion for summary judgment.

     Rule 121(a)1 provides that either party may move for summary

judgment upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy.


     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to
the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code.
                               - 2 -

Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid

unnecessary and expensive trials.      Fla. Peach Corp. v.

Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).

     Full or partial summary judgment is appropriate “if the

pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions,

and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits,

if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.”

Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520

(1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).     The moving party

bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of

material fact, and factual inferences will be read in a manner

most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.       Dahlstrom

v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v.

Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982).

     Upon consideration of the record, and viewing it in a light

most favorable to petitioner, material issues of fact are in

dispute.   Accordingly, we shall deny respondent’s motion for

summary judgment.

     Petitioner and respondent dispute what issues petitioner

raised and what actually transpired at the section 6330 hearing.

     Respondent contends that petitioner did not submit requested

documents (e.g., a Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement

for Individuals) or a completed offer in compromise (OIC) to the
                               - 3 -

settlement officer.   We note that respondent did not call the

settlement officer as a witness.

     Petitioner credibly testified that he submitted a copy of a

completed OIC to the settlement officer and informed her that the

OIC had been submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in

May 2001 before the section 6330 hearing.    Petitioner also

credibly testified that he raised the issue of reinstating an

installment agreement that had been defaulted because of one late

return, that he submitted (and resubmitted) a completed Form 433-

A, and that he submitted other documents to the settlement

officer.   Petitioner also credibly testified that the settlement

officer refused to consider, or would not reconsider, documents

he submitted to the IRS before the section 6330 hearing.

Petitioner also credibly testified that there were

misunderstandings between him and the settlement officer

regarding what years needed to be covered and what information

needed to be submitted.

     Respondent, at the hearing in our Court, noted that

petitioner’s testimony contradicted administrative records

prepared by the settlement officer and submitted by respondent as

an attachment to the motion for summary judgment.    As stated

supra, factual inferences will be read in a manner most favorable

to the party opposing summary judgment.     Dahlstrom v.
                                   - 4 -

Commissioner, supra at 821; Jacklin v. Commissioner, supra at

344.

       We further note that respondent objected to the admission of

four documents received at the Court hearing, on the grounds that

they were not part of the administrative record.         Petitioner

credibly testified that all of these documents had been provided

to the IRS at some point (possibly before the section 6330

hearing) and that at least some of these documents were submitted

to the settlement officer as part of the section 6330 hearing.

Accordingly, the issue of what documents should be contained in

petitioner’s administrative record also is in dispute.

       Material facts remain in dispute.       Accordingly, summary

judgment is inappropriate at this juncture.

       To reflect the foregoing,


                                                An appropriate order will

                                           be issued.
