Joseph F. and Caroline Enos - Page 1

                                   123 T.C. No. 17                                    

                               UNITED STATES TAX COURT                                

                     JOSEPH F. AND CAROLINE ENOS, Petitioners v.                      
                    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent                      

               Docket No. 11630-01L.        Filed September 27, 2004.                 

               R assessed income tax, interest, and civil fraud                       
               liabilities for Ps’ 1971 tax year.  Ps were involved in                
               the scrap metal business and had a substantial account                 
               receivable from Ps’ customer M.  R issued to M a notice                
               of levy on the account receivable.  R and M entered                    
               into a payment agreement, whereby M would make 200                     
               weekly payments of $1,500 to R.  Ps were aware of and                  
               participated in the negotiation of the payment                         
               agreement between M and R.  Ps continued to do business                
               with M and received large payments from M before M was                 
               placed in bankruptcy.  R filed an original and several                 
               amended proofs of claim in M’s bankruptcy case,                        
               relating to the notice of levy.  The bankruptcy court                  
               held that R did not have to marshal Ps’ assets before                  
               seeking M’s assets in bankruptcy court.  R issued Ps a                 
               notice of determination to proceed with collection of                  
               Ps’ 1971 liabilities for accrued interest on Ps’ 1971                  
               tax liabilities pursuant to sec. 6330, I.R.C.  R                       
               determined that collection should proceed because R                    
               never had “dominion and control” over the account                      

Page:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011