- 8 -
that the collection action be no more intrusive than necessary
and was appropriate under the circumstances.
Petitioner mailed a letter dated May 19, 2002, to this Court
which this Court treated as a timely, but imperfect, petition
appealing respondent’s determination for 1993 and 1994. This
Court then mailed petitioner an order requiring her to file a
proper amended petition. On June 17, 2002, this Court received
and filed petitioner’s amended petition, which purported to cover
the period from “1993 through present”.
In her original petition, petitioner alleged, among other
things, that she had no money and requested that the Court send
her a form petition and “Pauper’s Affidavit”. Petitioner did not
make any allegations in either her original petition or in her
amended petition that the proposed levy was improper, nor did she
raise any justiciable issue regarding the collection of the
assessed liabilities other than a general assertion that she had
no money.
On November 25, 2002, respondent filed a motion for summary
judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673. In that
motion, respondent contends that he is entitled to summary
adjudication as a matter of law, and he supports his contention
with a declaration from Appeals Officer Dodson, signed under
penalties of perjury, and related exhibits. Respondent also
moves for the imposition of a penalty under section 6673 because
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011