Duane E. Hudspath - Page 17

                                        -17-                                          
               Balancing Efficient Collection and Intrusiveness                       
               IRC 6330 requires that the Appeals Office consider                     
               whether any collection action balances the need for                    
               efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer’s                      
               legitimate concern that any collection action be no                    
               more intrusive than necessary.  The file indicates that                
               the legal and procedural requirements pursuant to the                  
               issuance of the Final Notice, Notice of Intent to Levy,                
               were met and were not improper.                                        
               As stated, placement of the taxpayer’s account into                    
               Installment Agreement status will prevent enforced                     
               action from occurring.  Therefore, the issued Notice of                
               Intent to Levy will become moot.  Should the agreement                 
               default, the IRS will issue CP523, Notice of Defaulted                 
               Installment Agreement, which will detail potential                     
               enforcement actions that may be taken against the                      
               taxpayer.                                                              
                                     Discussion                                       
               The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no                 
          genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as            
          a matter of law.  Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,            
          98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).  We             
          conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact                  
          regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion.                      
               In his response to respondent’s motion (petitioner’s re-               
          sponse), petitioner frames the issue presented in the instant               
          case as follows:                                                            
                    Whether the misrepresentations by Respondent’s                    
               counsel of the terms of the settlement agreement in                    
               Hudspath v. Commissioner, Docket No. 7901-00 should                    
               render the settlement agreement void and thus, preclude                
               any lien or levy action for assessments arising there-                 
               from?                                                                  
          Petitioner takes the following position in petitioner’s response:           





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011