- 7 -
forth in respondent’s motion nor does it allege any new
facts. Thus, in responding to respondent’s motion,
petitioner did not set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial. See Rule 121(d).
Furthermore, petitioner’s motion does not take issue with
the Appeals officer’s determination that petitioner is not
eligible for an installment agreement.
Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment consists of
a series of legal statements that raise frivolous and
groundless issues. First, petitioner’s motion states that
“unless an ‘assessment’ of an ‘imposed’ tax ‘has been made’
the imposed tax cannot be ‘collected by levy or by a
proceeding in court’.” While we agree that, generally, the
tax must be assessed as a liability of the taxpayer before
there can be a levy on the taxpayer’s property to collect
the tax, see secs. 6303(a), 6330, 6501(a), and 6502, there
is ample evidence in the record of this case to show that
the subject tax determined by respondent was properly
assessed. The notice of determination issued on August 29,
2003, sets forth the statement of the Appeals officer that
“the assessment is valid.” Furthermore, attached to the
Declaration of the Appeals officer is a copy of the
transcript of petitioner’s account, dated May 12, 2003,
showing that the subject tax was assessed on June 7, 1999.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011