- 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 jointPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011