- 2 -
not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be
cited as authority.
Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review of
respondent’s determination to proceed with a proposed levy
following a collection due process hearing (CDP hearing) under
section 6330(d). The issues for decision are: (1) Whether
respondent’s determination to proceed with collection action was
an abuse of discretion, and (2) whether the Court should impose a
penalty under section 6673.
Background
When she filed her petition, petitioner was a resident of
Middletown, Connecticut.
Petitioner submitted a document purporting to be a joint
Federal income tax return for 1996 with her husband, Dennis
Gavigan (Mr. Gavigan). On this document they reported no taxable
income and an income tax liability of zero.2 Following an
examination of the purported tax return for 1996, and information
submitted by other persons, respondent determined that petitioner
and Mr. Gavigan earned taxable wages of $33,880 and received
taxable interest payments of $57.50.
2 Petitioner’s purported joint 1996 Federal income tax
return was not introduced as part of the record in this case.
Petitioner does not dispute that she submitted a return showing
no income and no tax liability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011