- 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 forPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011