- 5 -
The attachment to the notice of determination states, in
part, that petitioners “disputed receiving the income asserted in
a prior Notice of Deficiency”, but that they “did not deny
receiving the August 05, 2002 Notice of Deficiency.”
On June 30, 2004, petitioners filed with the Court a
petition for levy action under section 6330(d). In the petition,
petitioners listed their address as the Lake Forest address.
Petitioners attached to the petition as an exhibit a copy of the
notice of determination and the aforementioned attachment.
The only issue raised by petitioners in the petition is a
challenge to the existence or amount of the underlying tax
liability.
As previously indicated, respondent filed a Motion For
Summary Judgment. In the motion, respondent asserts, in part, as
follows:
* * * As noted by [the Appeals officer] in the
attachment to the Notice of Determination, petitioners
did not deny receiving the August 5, 2002 notice of
deficiency, which was sent to the address where they
still reside. * * * Thus, petitioners may not raise the
underlying liability for 2000 as an issue in this case.
In objecting to the granting of respondent’s motion,
petitioners continued to challenge only the existence or amount
of the underlying tax liability.
Discussion
The Court may grant summary judgment when there is no
genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011