Filomena Pahamotang - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          of the hearing with Appeals or the consideration of collection              
          alternatives.                                                               
                                       OPINION                                        
               There is no disagreement about any material fact, and the              
          controverted issue involves a question that is ripe for summary             
          judgment.  Rule 121(b); Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C.           
          678, 681 (1988); Shiosaki v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862                 
          (1974).                                                                     
               Section 6330 provides that, upon request and in the                    
          circumstances described therein, a taxpayer has a right to a                
          “fair hearing”.  Sec. 6330(b).  A “fair hearing” consists of the            
          following elements:  (1) An impartial officer will conduct the              
          hearing; (2) the conducting officer will receive verification               
          from the Secretary that the requirements of applicable law and              
          administrative procedure have been met; (3) certain issues may be           
          heard such as spousal defenses and offers-in-compromise; and (4)            
          a challenge to the underlying liability may be raised if the                
          taxpayer did not receive a statutory notice of deficiency or                
          otherwise receive an opportunity to dispute such liability.  Sec.           
          6330(c).                                                                    
               Petitioner, in response to respondent’s motion for summary             
          judgment, advances three principal contentions.  Her first                  
          contention is that the 3-year period for assessment of the tax              
          had expired prior to the time (August 1998) that respondent                 






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011