- 2 -
1. Held: R’s Appeals Office’s determinations that Ps’
April 1994 remittance was a payment rather than a deposit
and that the amount Ps sought to apply to their post-1993
tax liabilities therefore had been paid outside the
“lookback” period of sec. 6511(b)(2)(A), I.R.C., that is
applicable to Ps’ Jan. 2000 request for credit are
sustained.
2. Held, further, R’s Appeals Office’s
determination to allow the proposed levy to proceed is
sustained.
Lawrence R. Jones, Jr., for petitioners.
Marty J. Dama, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HALPERN, Judge: These cases are before the Court to review
determinations made by respondent’s Appeals Office (Appeals) that
respondent may proceed to collect by levy unpaid income taxes
assessed against petitioners for 1994, 1995, and 1996.1 We
review those determinations pursuant to section 6330(d)(1).2
1 Petitioners are husband and wife who made joint returns
of income for the years in issue and for 1993. Due to petitioner
husband’s bankruptcy, respondent made separate determinations to
proceed with collection with respect to each petitioner, and each
petitioner filed a separate petition. We have consolidated the
two resulting cases. The issues and arguments are the same in
each case.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references and
references to the Code are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011