Jan Lister - Page 14

                                       - 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