- 9 -
tive procedures have been met. The courts have previ-
ously addressed the taxpayers’ arguments, and Appeals
does not have the authority for reconsideration of the
matters.
The assessments are valid and the Service followed
proper procedures in making the assessments. The
taxpayers received their required notices and the
notice of intent to levy is appropriate. The filing of
the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was also appropriate to
protect the Government’s interest. The taxpayer was
given an opportunity at the hearing to arrange for
payment of the taxes. The taxpayer refused to discuss
collection alternatives. Given the taxpayer’s history
of non-compliance, I believe that collection action in
the form of levy should be allowed to proceed. Lacking
the taxpayer’s cooperation, the proposed collection
action balances the need for efficient collection of
taxes with the taxpayer’s legitimate concern that any
collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.
[Reproduced literally.]
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
tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will
review the determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
As was true of petitioners’ attachment to their 1997 joint
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011