- 14 -
levy action was inappropriate, another collection alternative was
more appropriate, an appropriate spousal defense applied, or some
other relevant issue adversely affected respondent’s proposed
collection activity. Sec. 6330(c)(2). Nevertheless,
petitioner’s only contentions before the Appeals Office and
before this Court regarding the appropriateness of respondent’s
proposed collection action were that she is disabled and unable
to pay any liability and that she is entitled to a refund of
allowances and credits. Petitioner waived her right to appear
personally at the hearing under section 6330 and submitted no
information whatsoever to either the Appeals Office or this Court
documenting her assertion that she is unable to pay the subject
liabilities or that she is entitled to any refunds or credits.
Petitioner supplied us with no factual record on which we
could conclude that the Appeals Office’s determination permitting
the levy to proceed was an abuse of discretion. Consequently, we
shall grant respondent’s motion as to the summary adjudication
under Rule 121.
B. Respondent’s Request for Section 6673 Penalty
We turn now to that part of respondent’s motion that seeks a
penalty against petitioner under section 6673. Section 6673(a)
authorizes this Court to impose a penalty not in excess of
$25,000 on any taxpayer who institutes or maintains proceedings
in this Court primarily for delay, asserts a position in such
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