- 5 -
In its ruling on the United States’ motion for summary
judgment relating to petitioner’s unpaid tax liability for 1980,
the District Court concluded that the period of limitations on
collection of petitioner’s tax liability for 1980 remained open.
United States v. Magana, supra.1
Petitioner’s motion for rehearing was denied in the above
District Court case, and petitioner did not appeal the District
Court judgment. On June 18, 2000, that judgment became final.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). In United States v. Magana, supra,
petitioner was represented by counsel.
During petitioner’s collection hearing with respondent’s
Appeals Office, petitioner, by way of counsel, again asserted the
same statute of limitations contention. Also during the
collection hearing, petitioner did not allege hardship, and
petitioner did not wish to discuss any alternatives to the lien
filings. Respondent’s Appeals Office memorandum expressly states
in this regard that petitioner’s counsel “did not desire a
discussion with regard to alternatives” to the lien filings and
“Therefore, Appeals is unable to make an alternative
determination that is less intrusive” than the lien filings.
1 The District Court’s ruling was based on the execution by
petitioner of an extension of the period of limitations on
collection, on an offer in compromise submitted by petitioner to
respondent, and on the referred-to statutory extension of the
period of limitations on collection from 6 years to 10 years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011