-13-
was not a “determination” under section 6330(d)(1) where the
taxpayer’s request for a Hearing was untimely); Nelson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-264 (same); Lopez v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2001-228 (same). The fact that respondent held with
petitioner a hearing labeled as an equivalent hearing, rather
than a hearing labeled as a Hearing, and that respondent issued
to petitioner a document labeled as a decision letter, rather
than a document labeled as a notice of determination, does not
erase the fact that petitioner received a “determination” within
the meaning of section 6330(d)(1). We hold that we have
jurisdiction to decide this case.
B. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be
granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in
controversy “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(a) and (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
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011