Thomasita Taylor - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION                                   

               WHERRY, Judge:  This case is before the Court on                       
          respondent’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 121.1, 2          
          The instant proceeding arises from a petition for judicial review           
          filed in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning                   
          Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330.  The issues            
          for decision are:  (1) Whether respondent may proceed with                  
          collection action as so determined, and (2) whether the Court,              
          sua sponte, should impose a penalty under section 6673.                     
                                     Background                                       
               This case involves petitioner’s 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996             
          income tax liabilities.  A notice of deficiency with respect to             
          these years was issued to petitioner and sent by certified mail             
          on September 9, 1999, to 1836 West Mohave Street, Phoenix,                  
          Arizona 85007.  Petitioner did not file a petition with this                
          Court in response to the notice of deficiency, and respondent               
          assessed the taxes, additions to tax, and interest for all four             


               1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to            
          the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule                 
          references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.            
               2 As will be explained more fully infra in text, respondent            
          initially filed a written motion for summary judgment on Sept.              
          20, 2004, that was denied by order of the Court dated Oct. 4,               
          2004.  At the close of proceedings in this case held on Oct. 20,            
          2004, at the trial session of the Court in Phoenix, Arizona,                
          counsel for respondent moved to renew the motion for summary                
          judgment.  The Court took the oral motion for summary judgment              
          under advisement at that time.                                              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011