- 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). We
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011