Albert G. Cooper - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          did not consider a letter petitioner allegedly sent to respondent           
          declaring petitioner’s intent to pursue a collection alternative            
          or an offer in compromise.  All section references are to the               
          Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to           
          the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                              
                                     Background                                       
               The parties’ moving papers contain certain statements of               
          fact which the parties do not dispute and are set forth as facts            
          for the purpose of deciding the instant motion.  Petitioner                 
          resided in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, when the petition was                
          filed.                                                                      
               On December 16, 1991, petitioner filed a chapter 11                    
          reorganization case with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the                  
          Western District of Pennsylvania.  An amended plan of                       
          reorganization was confirmed in 1992.  On November 5, 1996, the             
          plan was converted from a chapter 11 case to a chapter 7 case.              
          Respondent issued a proof of claim relating to petitioner’s 1991            
          and 1995 taxable years.                                                     
               On August 11, 2001, respondent issued petitioner a Final               
          Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing,             
          relating to the 1991 and 1995 taxable years.  On August 30, 2001,           
          respondent received petitioner’s request for a hearing.  In the             
          request for a section 6330 hearing, petitioner stated:  “We                 
          disagree with the assessed balances and statutory additions based           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011