- 6 -
independent review of the rejected offer as required
under the Act.
* * * * * *
5. Petitioner has at all times acted in good
faith in connection with her tax affairs. Therefore
denial of an offer that would give her a “fresh start”
is misplaced. Moreover, no alternatives such as income
collateral agreements were made available to either the
Petitioner or her representative prior to issuance of
this Determination.
After the case was set for trial, respondent filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Although petitioner was ordered to serve on
respondent and file with the Court a written response to the
Motion for Summary Judgment, she failed to do so. However, when
the case was called for hearing on the Motion for Summary
Judgment, petitioner was permitted to testify and to present the
testimony of her representative as a means of explaining her
position. See Rule 121(b), (d).
Discussion
The primary dispute in this case arises from an apparent
misunderstanding by petitioner and her representative of the
effect of sections 6320 and 6330. Sections 6320 (pertaining to
liens) and 6330 (pertaining to levies) were enacted as part of
the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3401, 112 Stat. 746, to provide new
procedural protections for taxpayers in collection matters.
Section 6330 generally provides that the Commissioner may not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011