- 4 -
4/15/1996, showing total tax due of $8,125.87. The
information that you have provided regarding your
position, including the information presented by you at
your hearing on 10/18/2000, did not change our position
that we have a valid assessment for 1995. However,
with regard to the civil penalties assessed for 1996
(4@$500), and 1997(1@$500,they cannot be considered
under the collection due process procedure, because
they have a separate appeal procedure under Penalty
Appeals. Therefore, they will be considered under that
procedure, and you will be notified of the result. Any
other issues raised by you were determined to be not
applicable to our consideration of this case.
(3) The proposed collection action for 1995 balances
the need for the efficient collection of the tax with
your legitimate concern that any collection action be
no more intrusive than necessary. [Reproduced liter-
ally.]
Discussion
The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no
genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as
a matter of law. Rule 121(b);2 Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). We
conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact regard-
ing the questions raised in respondent’s motion.
The validity of the underlying tax liability for 1995 is not
at issue in this case.3 Consequently, we shall consider the
2Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Unless otherwise
indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code in effect at all relevant times.
3Although not altogether clear, petitioner may have chal-
lenged the underlying tax liability for 1995 at the Appeals
Office hearing. However, petitioner did not raise any challenge
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011