- 12 -
Respondent on December 8, 2003, then filed a motion for summary
judgment. After an extension of time, again requested on claims
of poor health, petitioner filed a response opposing the motion.
Petitioner reiterated his position that he never received a “due
process hearing” and also, for the first time, alleged that the
original assessment of the 1985 liabilities in November of 1986
was prohibited by the bankruptcy law then in effect (and that the
period of limitations for a proper assessment had since
expired).9
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and the
parties ultimately agreed to submit this case fully stipulated
under Rule 122. Both parties filed opening and reply briefs,
although petitioner did so only after being granted extensions of
time on account of further assertions of health problems.
Discussion
I. General Rules
Section 6331(a) authorizes the Commissioner to levy upon all
property and rights to property of a taxpayer where there exists
9 Petitioner has at no time contended, nor does the record
support, that the point raised in his Form 12153, Request for a
Collection Due Process Hearing, regarding expiration of the
period of limitations for 1985 was intended to refer to other
than, as interpreted by respondent, the statute of limitations on
collection. Respondent’s subsequent communications clearly
expressed and addressed this understanding of the issue, and
neither petitioner nor his representatives ever sought to alter
that understanding or otherwise to focus discussion on any
perceived problem with the assessment.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011