- 3 -
dispute the underlying tax liabilities for those years; (2)
Appeals abused its discretion in determining that collection by
levy was the most appropriate course of action when petitioners
wished to submit collection alternatives and an offer in
compromise was pending; and (3) Appeals would not, in connection
with petitioners’ claims, consider the claims of two nominee
corporations (nominees of Mrs. Kendricks), Foxy Investments,
Inc., and J & K Trucking Co., Inc. (the nominee corporations).
By order dated March 17, 2004, we, in effect, disposed of
petitioners’ third ground, by granting respondent’s motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (and to obtain certain other
relief) with respect to the nominee corporations.3 With respect
to petitioners’ remaining two grounds, respondent moves for
summary judgment in his favor (the motion). Petitioners object.
Rule 121 provides for summary judgment. Summary judgment
may be granted with respect to all or any part of the legal
issues in controversy "if the pleadings, answers to
interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other
acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a
decision may be rendered as a matter of law." Rule 121(a) and
(b). When a motion for summary judgment is made and properly
3 We based our order on our finding that the nominee
corporations were not persons liable to pay the unpaid
assessments and, therefore, were not proper parties to this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011