- 6 -
Petitioner referenced procedural guidelines, issued by the
Department of the Treasury more than 50 years ago, that
referenced the form that petitioner argued must be used by
respondent.
In his petition filed with this Court, petitioner alleged
that the November 19, 2001, hearing with Appeals was “lawless and
erroneous”. He also contended that collection was not
appropriate and that respondent had not made a “valid
assessment”.
At the Appeals hearing, petitioner did not raise any of the
categories for relief set forth in section 6330(c)(2)(A), which
include spousal defenses, challenges to collection actions, and
collection alternatives.
Discussion
Respondent seeks summary judgment with respect to whether he
may proceed to collect certain outstanding tax liabilities of
petitioner and whether petitioner should be held liable for a
penalty under section 6673. Rule 121 provides for summary
judgment to be granted with respect to part or all of the legal
issues in controversy if there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact. See Sunstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518,
520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). In that regard,
summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011