Kevin P. Burke - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
               This case was submitted to the Court following a trial.                
          Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion to Permit Levy pursuant to            
          section 6330(e)(2).                                                         
               As discussed in detail below, we shall sustain the notice of           
          determination upon which this case is based.  In addition,                  
          respondent has shown good cause for lifting the suspension of the           
          proposed levy, and we shall grant respondent’s Motion to Permit             
          Levy, and shall impose a penalty under section 6673.                        
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The parties’ stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are             
          incorporated herein by this reference.  At the time the petition            
          was filed, petitioner resided in Phoenix, Arizona.                          
               On September 27, 2000, respondent issued to petitioner                 
          notices of deficiency for 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997.                 
          Petitioner filed with the Court a timely petition for                       
          redetermination at docket No. 13410-00.  On April 10, 2002, the             
          Court entered an Order and Order of Dismissal and Decision at               
          docket No. 13410-00, denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss,2               
          dismissing the case on the ground that petitioner failed properly           
          to prosecute, sustaining the income tax deficiencies and                    


               2  The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the notices           
          of deficiency were invalid because they were issued before the              
          Commissioner complied with the requirements of the partnership              
          provisions set forth in secs. 6221 to 6234.                                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011