Said M. Karara - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
               There is no indication in the summary judgment documents as            
          to whether petitioner raised the collection stay agreement issue            
          in the administrative hearing.  Moreover, it appears that                   
          respondent complied with its terms.  The Supreme Court's denial             
          of the petition for writ of certiorari on November 6, 2000,                 
          finalized the decisions of the Tax Court and the Court of Appeals           
          for the Eleventh Circuit.  In accordance with the agreement,                
          respondent did not resume any collection activity until                     
          approximately 10 months after the Supreme Court’s denial of                 
          petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari.3                              
               Petitioner makes a second argument as to why respondent                
          should be precluded from proceeding with collection.  The essence           
          of petitioner’s argument is that respondent failed or waived the            
          right to respond to petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari.           
          Petitioner further contends that the waiver of the right to                 
          respond constitutes a waiver or bar to respondent with respect to           
          petitioner’s position that he owes no tax for 1993 and 1994.                
               Petitioner bases his position on rule 15 of the Rules of the           
          Supreme Court, which, among other provisions, sets forth                    
          procedures for waiver of the right to respond to a petition for             
          writ of certiorari.  Specifically, petitioner contends that the             
          waiver of the right to respond foreclosed respondent from taking            
          collection action against petitioner.  Petitioner’s reliance on             


               3 Respondent’s resumed collection activity, offsetting                 
          against petitioner’s 1993 liability an overpayment from another             
          period, was unrelated to a levy on petitioner’s property.                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011