- 9 - You have not challenged the appropriateness of the levy action. At your Collection Due Process Hearing you spoke about whether the assessment made was done so by one delegated with the authority to do so. You stated you do not believe you received a proper Statutory Notice of Deficiency for the Secretary of the Treasury did not sign it. I explained it [sic] the Statutory Notice of Deficiency does not have to be signed by the Secretary of the Treasury to be valid. You have been previously given an opportunity to contest the amount assessed as income tax. Due to fact you have had a previous opportunity the underlying liability is not to be considered under the Collection Due Process. Review of the information stated above and now present in the administrative file shows the requirements of all applicable laws and administrative procedures have been met. Assessments were properly made. You were billed and did not pay the amounts due. Collection proceeded with enforced collection and they should be allowed to continue. It is Appeals determination that the proposed collec- tion action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern that collection action is no more intrusive than necessary. 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); 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 regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion. With respect to petitioner’s taxable years 1997 and 1998, petitioner received a notice of deficiency, but he did not file a petition with respect to that notice. In the petition, peti- tioner admits that he received the notice of deficiency andPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011