- 7 - A). This information was to be submitted within 14 days of the date of the letter, but was never provided. In the CDP hearing, you refused to discuss payment alternatives to the levy. You raised no other issues. Balancing Efficient Collection and Intrusiveness The issuance of the Notice of Intent to Levy was not unnecessarily intrusive. You did not contact the Service to make arrangements to pay or otherwise re- solve the liabilities. The proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necesssary. MY EVALUATION Since you were previously given the opportunity to contest the liability, the liability issue cannot be considered in the CDP hearing. The liability remains unpaid. You have offered no payment alternative to the levy. The Notice of Intent to Levy issued 4/8/2004 for tax year ending 12/2000 is sustained. 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); Sunstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). In petitioner’s response to respondent’s motion (petitioner’s response), petitioner agrees with the material facts set forth in respondent’s motion and the attachments thereto. We conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011