Carl and Lisa Neugebauer - Page 2

                                         -2-                                          
          judgment under Rule 121(a).  Petitioners responded to                       
          respondent’s motion under Rule 121(b).                                      
               We shall grant respondent’s motion for summary judgment.               
          Section references are to the applicable versions of the Internal           
          Revenue Code.  Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of                
          Practice and Procedure.                                                     
                                     Background                                       
               Petitioners filed joint Federal income tax returns for 1994            
          and 1995 reflecting refunds for both years.  These returns were             
          later audited, and on or about April 19, 1999, respondent                   
          assessed income tax deficiencies and related penalties and                  
          interest against petitioners with respect to 1994 and 1995.                 
          Petitioners failed to pay fully the amounts assessed and in                 
          February 2000 ceased making monthly payments of $2,500 per month            
          as mandated by an installment payment agreement.  On or about May           
          7, 2001, respondent issued to petitioners a letter entitled                 
          “Final Notice - Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right           
          to a Hearing Under IRC 6330".                                               
               On or about June 8, 2001, petitioners submitted a Form                 
          12153, Request For A Collection Due Process Hearing.  On January            
          10, 2002, petitioners submitted an offer in compromise and a                
          collection information statement in connection with their request           
          for a hearing.  Respondent’s Appeal officer determined that the             
          offer in compromise should not be accepted because the offer and            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011