- 2 -
receivable because M continued to make payments to Ps
after R issued M the notice of levy and Ps participated
in the negotiation of the payment agreement with M.
Held: Ps’ liability to R was not satisfied when R
issued M the notice of levy because it only provided R
with legal custody of Ps’ account receivable from M.
Held, further, R did not have “dominion and control”
over the account receivable from M to Ps. Held,
further, the notice of determination relates only to
Ps’ 1971 tax year, and the Court does not have
jurisdiction over Ps’ 1970 and 1972 tax years. Held,
further, res judicata does not apply to the instant
case. Held, further, collateral estoppel does not
apply to the instant case. Held, further, the Court
does not have jurisdiction to determine whether M’s
bankruptcy trustee is liable for penalties under 31
U.S.C. secs. 191 and 192 (2000) and secs. 6331 and
6332, I.R.C. Held, further, petitioners are not
entitled to an abatement of interest because a
significant aspect of any error or delay is
attributable to petitioners.
Hans A. Stoeckler, for petitioners.
D. Sean McMahon, for respondent.
OPINION
WELLS, Judge: The petition in the instant case was filed in
response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection
Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of
determination).1 In the notice of determination, respondent
determined that collection should proceed against petitioners to
1All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as
amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 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