- 7 -
brief and at the summary judgment hearing, petitioner argued that
during an August 7, 2000, telephone conversation, he and a
Department of Justice attorney agreed to stay further collection
activity with respect to petitioner’s 1993 and 1994 tax
liabilities until the decision of the Tax Court in his deficiency
suit became final. Petitioner further contends that he raised
this issue at the administrative hearing and that it was an abuse
of discretion that the Appeals officer did not consider it.
Respondent acknowledges the agreement to stay collection and
maintains that there was compliance with its terms.
Section 6330(e)(1) precludes the Commissioner from
proceeding with a proposed levy that is the subject of a hearing
while the hearing and any related appeals are pending. See Craig
v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 258 (2002). Therefore, as of
August 14, 2000, the date that respondent received petitioner’s
request for a hearing, respondent was precluded from proceeding
with levy actions pending the outcome of this appeal. See Boyd
v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 127, 130-131 (2001). In that respect,
respondent has not pursued enforced collection since issuing the
Final Notice-–Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right
to a Hearing on July 29, 2000. Accordingly and irrespective of
the agreement to stay collection, since August 14, 2000,
respondent has otherwise been precluded from proceeding with levy
activity.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011