- 8 -
that: (1) The Appeals officer failed to obtain verification from
the Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure were met as required under section
6330(c)(1); (2) petitioners never received a notice and demand
for payment; 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 liability.
G. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment
After filing an answer to the petition, respondent filed a
Motion For Summary Judgment And To Impose A Penalty Under I.R.C.
Section 6673 asserting that there is no dispute as to a material
fact and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. In particular, respondent contends that: (1) Because
petitioners received the notice of deficiency dated October 8,
1999, they cannot challenge the existence or amount of their
underlying tax liability for 1997 in this proceeding; (2) the
Appeals officer’s review of the IMF MCC transcript of account
with regard to petitioners’ account for 1997 satisfied the
verification requirement imposed under section 6330(c)(1); (3)
the record shows that petitioners were issued a notice and demand
for payment; and (4) petitioners’ behavior warrants the
imposition of a penalty under section 6673.
4(...continued)
in Las Vegas, Nev.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011