- 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