- 14 -
so. Petitioner also failed to appear for the scheduled hearing
and thus lost that opportunity to otherwise corroborate his
claims.
Consequently, although the Court is sympathetic to any
economic difficulties petitioner may have encountered or be
encountering, it cannot be said that respondent acted arbitrarily
or capriciously in determining to proceed with levy when
petitioner submitted no documentation of his present financial
circumstances. See Newstat v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-208.
The petition makes no assignments of error other than the
two contentions discussed above. As this Court has noted in
earlier cases, Rule 331(b)(4) states that a petition for review
of a collection action shall contain clear and concise
assignments of each and every error alleged to have been
committed in the notice of determination and that any issue not
raised in the assignments of error shall be deemed conceded. See
Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185-186 (2001); Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 183 (2000). Accordingly, the Court
concludes that respondent’s determination to proceed with
collection of petitioner’s tax liabilities was not an abuse of
discretion. The Court will grant respondent’s motion for summary
judgment. To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order
granting respondent’s motion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011