8
More specifically, petitioner contends that the 16th Amendment
authorizing a direct tax on income is itself unconstitutional
because it violates the 10th Amendment. Even if petitioner's
argument contained a scintilla of merit (which it does not), it
would be unavailing in this proceeding because petitioner is
precluded at this point from disputing the underlying tax
liabilities. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).
The foregoing being petitioner's only argument, and there
being no genuine issue as to any material fact, see Rule 121(a)
and (b), we conclude that respondent is entitled to summary
judgment in his favor on the issue of whether he may proceed with
the proposed levy.
In his motion, respondent also seeks imposition on
petitioner of a penalty under section 6673(a)(1). We have
previously warned taxpayers that penalties under section 6673 may
be imposed in lien and levy actions where frivolous or groundless
positions are taken. See, e.g., Roberts v. Commissioner, 118
2(...continued)
the notice requirements of sec. 6303(a). Hughes v. United
States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1992); Standifird v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-245, affd. 72 Fed. Appx. 729 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Finally, petitioner argued, for the first time at the
hearing on respondent's motion, that sec. 6330 did not apply to
this case because the statute was enacted after the deficiencies
for 1991-94 had been determined and assessed. Even if petitioner
were permitted to raise the issue at this point, it is devoid of
merit. Sec. 6330 applies to collection actions commenced 180
days after its July 22, 1998, enactment, or Jan. 18, 1999. The
collection action in this case commenced on May 27, 2002.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011