- 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