Arthur W. & Rita C. Miller - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
               As no viable options have been presented for consider-                 
               ation, further Appeals consideration of this account is                
               not warranted.                                                         
               The filing of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien is sus-                   
               tained by the Appeals office at this time.  [Reproduced                
               literally.]                                                            
               In the petition that petitioners filed commencing the                  
          instant case, petitioners alleged:                                          
               We respectfully request the release of the lien applied                
               against us and the abatement of the associated penalty                 
               and interest.  Sufficient taxes have been paid to cover                
               our tax debt which is evidenced by the AMT credit due                  
               us for $120,868 that the IRS currently holds.                          
                                     Discussion                                       
               The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no                 
          genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as            
          a matter of law.  Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,            
          98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).                 
               Petitioners filed a response (petitioners’ response) to                
          respondent’s motion in which they oppose the granting of that               
          motion.  According to petitioners,                                          
               The significant issue of material fact which is not                    
               conceded is that the Collection Due Process hearing                    
               should have considered the penalty assessment. * * *                   
               the penalty waiver is justified because the estimated                  
               tax penalties and failure to pay penalties were gener-                 
               ated as a result of faulty tax advice.                                 
                    * * * Petitioners raised the issue of propriety of                
               assessment of the penalties at the CDP hearing.  It was                
               an abuse of discretion for the CDP officer to decline                  
               to consider the penalty waiver request.  The case of                   
               Bell, 126 T.C. No. 18 (2006) cited by Respondent is                    
               applicable because it references challenge to the                      
               entire tax liability.  A penalty abatement request may                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011