- 11 -
verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any
applicable law or administrative procedure were met as required
under section 6330(c)(1); (2) the Appeals officer failed to
identify the statutes making petitioners liable for Federal
income taxes; and (3) petitioners were denied the opportunity to
challenge (a) the appropriateness of the collection action, and
(b) the existence or amount of their underlying tax liabilities.
Concurrently with the filing of their petition, petitioners
filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in which they
asked the Court to “declare invalid the ‘Determination’ at issue,
since the appeals officer issued the ‘Determination’ without
conducting the CDP hearing as requested by petitioner according
to law.” Petitioners attached to their motion a Memorandum of
Law in which they repeated many of the allegations in the
petition. Petitioners also alleged:
there is no Code Section that authorizes IRS employees
to attribute to petitioners more taxes then [sic] they
reported on their tax returns. Since income taxes are
based on “self-assessment,” petitioners can only owe in
taxes, the amount reported on their tax returns, which,
in this case, were correctly reported as “zero.”
By Order dated August 27, 2001, the Court denied
petitioners’ motion to dismiss.
G. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment
As stated, respondent filed a Motion For Summary Judgment
And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673. Respondent
contends that petitioners are barred under section 6330(c)(2)(B)
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