- 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