- 5 - appeal of a notice of levy is whether respondent’s Appeals Office abused its discretion. Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001). We are asked to affirm, as a matter of summary judgment, respondent’s Appeals Office’s determination to reject petitioners’ offer-in-compromise and to sustain respondent’s notice of levy. We may grant summary judgment where there remains no material fact issue and where a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 122(a); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412, 416 (1982). The administrative file herein establishes that respondent’s Appeals officer reviewed petitioners’ financial data that was properly and timely submitted during the Appeals Office’s consideration of petitioners’ appeal, that petitioners failed to submit to respondent’s Appeals Office requested information on time, and that petitioners spent over $100,000 in cash as a downpayment to purchase an expensive new home at a time when they had substantial Federal income taxes due. Based on these facts, we conclude as a matter of law that respondent’s Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in issuing the notice of determination rejecting petitioners’ offer- in-compromise and sustaining respondent’s levy notice.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011