- 6 -
notice of determination to Ms. Frank. (We shall refer collec-
tively to those two notices as petitioners’ notices of determina-
tion). An attachment to each such notice of determination
stated:
! The Secretary has provided sufficient verification
that the requirements of any applicable law or
administrative procedure have been met.
! Your request for a hearing with Appeals was made
under IRC �6330 to prevent appropriate collection
action. You filed your 1997 tax return, reported
zero income and claimed a $5,839.56 refund. You
were issued a Statutory Notice of Deficiency for
1997 on November 17, 1999 and given the opportu-
nity to dispute the liability with the United
States Tax Court; you failed to do so. A tele-
phone [sic] hearing was held with you on December
20, 2000 to discuss alternative collection propos-
als for 1997. You failed to discuss or make any
alternative collection proposals for 1997.
! Without further cooperation, it is Appeals deci-
sion that the proposed collection action balances
the need for efficient collection of taxes with
the taxpayer’s [sic] legitimate concern that any
collection action be no more intrusive than neces-
sary.
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 are no genuine issues of material fact
regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion.
Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011