- 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