Harley Gunderson - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          Intent to Levy and Notice of your Right to a Hearing under                  
          sections 6331 and 6330.  On March 4, 1999, petitioner filed a               
          Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing.  After respondent             
          conducted a hearing by telephone, respondent issued a notice of             
          determination.  In the notice, respondent stated:                           
               Your challenge to the appropriateness of the collection                
               action was that you felt the I.R.S. notice issued June                 
               22, 1998, which showed the abatement for the premature                 
               master file assessment showing nothing due on that                     
               account, relieved you also of the non-master file                      
               assessment made in accordance with the Tax Court’s                     
               determination reflected in the decision document signed                
               by you and Judge Mary Ann Cohen and entered March 3,                   
               1998.  The notice reflects only internal accounting                    
               changes.  I.R.S. does not have authority to change the                 
               Tax Court determination, and that was not the purpose                  
               of the notice.                                                         
          On October 8, 1999, petitioner filed a petition for Lien/Levy               
          Action under Code Section 6320(c) or 6330(d).  In response to a             
          Court order, petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Lien or               
          Levy Action under Code Section 6320(c) or 6330(d) on November 29,           
          1999.4                                                                      
          Discussion                                                                  
          I.   Summary Judgment                                                       
               Respondent moved for summary judgment on the issue of                  
          whether respondent’s determination to proceed with collection as            



               4  Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amendment            
          to Petition (Embodying Amendment to Petition) in order to add his           
          wife, Mary L. Knotts, as a party-petitioner.  Respondent objected           
          to the motion arguing that we lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Knotts           
          because a notice of determination was not issued to her.  We                
          denied petitioner’s motion.                                                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011