- 21 -
silence) mislead petitioner. Moreover, petitioner was not
ignorant of the forfeiture order, and petitioner has failed to
show that respondent had any duty to assist petitioner in
mitigating his losses with respect to his criminal offenses.
These are critical defects in petitioner’s estoppel defense.
Respondent’s failure to petition the District Court does not
bar him from collecting the 1996 tax liability.
IV. Conclusion
We have concluded that, to the extent petitioner’s claim
constitutes a collateral attack on the forfeiture order, it must
be denied, and, further, respondent is not barred from collecting
the 1996 tax liability on account of his failure to petition the
District Court. Appeals did not err in determining that
respondent was warranted in filing the notice of Federal tax
lien. Therefore, as stated, respondent, not petitioner, is
entitled to summary judgment in his favor.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision granting respondent’s
motion for summary judgment,
denying petitioner’s, and
deciding for respondent will
be entered.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Last modified: May 25, 2011