- 10 -
19; Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-195; see also
Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001).
4. Procedural Issues Relating to the Levy
Petitioner contends that the levy was improper. Petitioner
argues that section 6330(e), which provides for suspension of
levies when levy cases are pending under section 6330, also
applies by cross-reference to lien cases under section 6320.
Sec. 6320(c).
Respondent collected by levy more than petitioner owed for
tax year 1998 and concedes petitioner is entitled to a refund
(with interest, see sec. 6621(a)(1)) for 1998.6 Having addressed
that point, we need not address petitioner’s procedural objection
to the levy because, even if he prevailed on this point, the net
effect on his tax payments would be nil. We rejected
petitioner’s arguments relating to his underlying tax liability
above. Thus, his liability is now established. We see no reason
to order a refund of levied funds (with interest) and then to
require petitioner to repay amounts he owes (plus interest). See
Lunsford v. Commissioner, supra at 189.
6 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss this case for
mootness because, as a result of the levy, respondent collected
more than respondent had determined petitioner owed for 1998.
We will deny respondent’s motion because petitioner is entitled
to a refund with respect to 1998.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011