- 4 -
provided with sufficient verification that the requirement of the
applicable laws and administrative procedures had been met; (2)
that the issues raised by petitioners were frivolous; (3) that
petitioners did not wish to pursue any other collection
alternatives; and (4) that the proposed collection action would
balance the need for efficient collection of tax with the
taxpayer’s legitimate concern that any collection action be no
more intrusive than necessary.
On August 28, 2001, petitioners timely petitioned this Court
alleging that they did not owe any tax and that the issues they
raised at the Collection Due Process Hearing were not addressed
by respondent’s Appeals officer.
Discussion
Summary judgment is the appropriate means by which to
resolve this case where the pleadings and other materials
demonstrate that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact
and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(b);
Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd.
17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994); Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90
T.C. 678, 681 (1988); Shiosaki v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862
(1974).
Section 6330 provides that, upon request and in the
circumstances described therein, a taxpayer has a right to a
“fair hearing”. Sec. 6330(b). A “fair hearing” consists of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011