- 5 -
response to their 2000 petition; acknowledges that respondent
considered and allowed at the “Collection Due Process Hearing” a
portion of the disputed cost of goods sold; argues that
respondent did not consider other issues that petitioners wished
to raise, such as deductions in 1997 for gambling losses, State
income taxes, and mortgage interest; and contends that “a levy
against petitioners’ current income would indeed be ‘more
intrusive than necessary.’” Petitioners then allude to several
items of real property and state: “What the petitioners want is
for the levy against current earnings to be delayed until the
correct amount of deficit has been determined and until they can
sell the property or mortgage it to pay the deficit.” The
attachment also clarifies that “petitioners are not challenging
any of the $1,846 alleged to be owed for 1996”.
Respondent on July 18, 2003, filed a Motion To Dismiss For
Lack of Jurisdiction As To Petitioners’ I.R.C. � 6330(a) Claim.
The Court granted respondent’s motion on grounds that
petitioners’ request for a hearing as to the levy was not timely
submitted to respondent within the time period prescribed by
statute. See sec. 6330(a)(3)(B); Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116
T.C. 255, 261-262 (2001). Respondent on September 15, 2003,
filed the instant motion for summary judgment. Petitioners were
ordered to file any response to this motion on or before October
6, 2003, but no such response has been received by the Court.
Discussion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011