-5-
Petitioner did not reply either by writing, as requested, or
by telephone, to the Appeals officer’s final letter.
On September 1, 2004, the Appeals officer reviewed
petitioner’s administrative file, concluded that the proposed
levy was appropriate, and mailed to petitioner a notice of
determination sustaining respondent’s levy notice.
On a motion for summary judgment, we decide whether there is
a genuine issue as to any material fact. Rule 121(b). Reviewing
the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985), we decide
whether the moving party has shown that: (1) There is no genuine
issue of material fact, Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 260
(2002); and (2) the moving party is entitled to a favorable
judgment according to controlling legal principles, Espinoza v.
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412, 416 (1982).
Where the underlying tax liability is not in dispute, abuse
of discretion is the standard of review in Appeals Office hearing
cases. Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001).
Upon proper and timely request, section 6330 requires
respondent to provide taxpayers with an Appeals Office hearing
relating to a notice of proposed levy. Sec. 6330(b)(1).
We have consistently held that a face-to-face hearing is not
invariably required: Where a taxpayer’s rights are not affected
by the absence of a face-to-face hearing, Gougler v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-185; where a taxpayer fails to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011