G. Robert Lyman and Shari Lee Wright Lyman - Page 9

                                        - 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                 
               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.]                                                
               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