Jorge Torres - Page 6

                                        - 5 -                                         
          prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502.  On the basis of the                 
          Court’s order, respondent’s settlement officer concluded that               
          petitioner had not acted on the notice for the 2001 taxable year.           
               On April 12, 2005, respondent sent to petitioner a Notice of           
          Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320            
          and/or 6330.  Petitioner filed his petition in this case on May             
          2, 2005.  In his petition, petitioner asserted:                             
                    The underlying liability of this collections                      
               action is unjust.  I did not have an adequate                          
               opportunity to prove that I was entitled to head of                    
               household, one dependency exemption, and the earned                    
               income credit for the tax year ended 12/31/2001.  All I                
               want is the opportunity to present proof to this Court                 
               that I am entitled to such and that this levy action is                
               not valid.  The appeals office refused to accept my                    
               proof and therefore I am petitioning this court to hear                
               my argument.                                                           
               In his motion for summary judgment, respondent argues that             
          section 6330(c)(2)(B) precludes petitioner from challenging the             
          underlying tax liability for 2001 because petitioner received a             
          notice of deficiency and failed to file a petition within the               
          time prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502.  In his response to           
          respondent’s motion for summary judgment, petitioner only argues            
          that respondent never provided him with a meaningful opportunity            
          to participate in a hearing regarding his proposed tax liability.           
                                     Discussion                                       
               Summary judgment serves to “expedite litigation and avoid              
          unnecessary and expensive trials.”  Fla. Peach Corp. v.                     
          Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).  Either party may move for           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011