- 6 -
return include, in part, their statement “... we know
that no section of the Internal Revenue Code:
1) Establishes an income tax ‘liability’...” In es-
sence, this argument is repeated again in their attach-
ment to their Form 12153. Therefore, further discus-
sion was considered non-productive. In addition, since
the taxpayers are not in filing compliance for tax year
2000, they are not now eligible for an offer or an
installment agreement.
Balancing the Need for Efficient Collection with Tax-
payer Concerns
The requirements of all applicable laws and administra-
tive procedures have been met. The assessment is
valid. Given the taxpayers [sic] continued lack of
compliance with the tax laws, a levy or levies on their
property and/or rights to property would not be consid-
ered more intrusive than necessary when balancing the
taxpayers’ concerns with the government’s need for
efficient collection of the taxes.
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 1998 joint
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011