Stephen G. Elek - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          Appeals available to the person.                                            
               Section 6330 generally provides that the Secretary cannot              
          proceed with collection by levy on any property of any person               
          until the person has been given notice and the opportunity for an           
          administrative review of the matter (in the form of an Appeals              
          Office hearing) and, if dissatisfied, with judicial review of the           
          administrative determination.  Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C.              
          35, 37 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000).              
          Where the underlying tax liability is not at issue, the Court               
          will review the Appeals officer’s determination for abuse of                
          discretion.  Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).                
               In the instant case, it is undisputed that petitioner                  
          received notices of deficiency with respect to the underlying tax           
          liabilities for 1995, 1996, and 1997 for which collection is                
          sought.  Therefore, we need only decide whether the Appeals                 
          officer abused her discretion in determining that collection may            
          proceed.                                                                    
               The only issue raised by petitioner in his request for a               
          hearing and in the petition is his allegation that the Notice of            
          Intent to Levy sent to him by respondent did not include an                 
          assessment certificate in compliance with section 301.6203-1,               
          Proced. & Admin. Regs.  Petitioner alleges that this failure by             
          respondent has denied him an opportunity for a meaningful                   
          hearing.  In his response to respondent’s motion for summary                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011