- 7 -
Determination
Based on the facts of the case, the collection action
taken was proper and appropriate. Compliance followed
the applicable law and administrative procedures.
It is recommended that your account be reassigned to
the Compliance for further collection action.
[Reproduced literally.]
In response to the notice of determination, petitioner filed
a petition with the Court. The petition contained statements,
contentions, arguments, and requests that the Court finds to be
frivolous and/or groundless.5
Discussion
The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no
genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as
a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).
Although not altogether clear, petitioner may be taking the
position that the Court should deny respondent’s motion because
there is a genuine issue of material fact, viz, whether the June
8, 2004 telephone call constituted petitioner’s Appeals Office
hearing under section 6320(b). Petitioner contends that it did
not and that the Court should remand this case to the Appeals
5The frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests in petitioner’s petition are similar to
the frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions,
arguments, and requests in the respective petitions filed with
the Court by certain other taxpayers. See, e.g., Copeland v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-46.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011