- 7 - instead simply attempted to carry forward with his frivolous arguments, so the hearing was terminated. * * * * * * * MY EVALUATION Review of the information stated above and now present in the administrative file shows the collection re- quirements for all applicable laws and administrative procedures have been met. Assessments were performed and notice and demand was made. The notice required by section 6330 of the I.R.C. was subsequently issued to TP, allowing him his appeal. However, there is information to show that not all the assessments were proper. Specifically, as indicated above the penalty under section 6651(a)(2) was added to the tax. That penalty is for the failure to pay the tax shown on a return when filed. * * * Here, the appropriate penalty is actually that under section 6651(a)(3). That penalty is for failure to pay the liability when billed. * * * the penalty assessed under [section] 6651(a)(2) should be removed at this time. * * * Balancing the Need for Efficient Collection with Tax- payer Concerns Given that no timely, reasonable alternative to the proposed levy action has been suggested and that TP has not presented anything more than frivolous arguments in the matter, it is my opinion that the proposed collec- tion action balances the government’s need for effi- cient collection with the taxpayer’s concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. It is therefore concluded that the action should be allowed to continue. 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). WePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011