- 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