-3-
attempted to challenge the amount of her underlying tax
liability. On April 14, 2004, respondent mailed to petitioner a
Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under
Section 6320 and/or 6330, sustaining the proposed levy. This
petition followed. Petitioner alleges that respondent’s
underlying determination as to liability is invalid because
respondent did not allow her to contest her underlying tax
liability at an appeals hearing before the notice of deficiency
was issued.
Discussion
Summary judgment may be granted with respect to any part of
the legal issues in controversy if the records before the Court
“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); Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 259-260 (2002).
Respondent bears the burden of proving there is no genuine issue
of material fact; all facts are viewed in the light most
favorable to petitioner. Craig v. Commissioner, supra at 260.
However, petitioner must do more than merely allege or deny
facts; she must set forth “specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Rule 121(d); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Under this standard, petitioner has
failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact, and summary
judgment is appropriate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011