- 5 -
unable to consider petitioner’s challenge to its underlying tax
liability in this collection proceeding. The notice verified
that all procedural and legal requirements had been met and that
the proposed levy was no more intrusive than necessary under the
circumstances. The notice stated that no face-to-face meeting
could be granted since petitioner had no collection alternative
to present.
In its petition, petitioner sets forth the following reasons
why it believes it is entitled to relief:
a) Incorrect Determination of Net Income/Net Operating
Loss resulting in assessment, and
b) Incorrect Application of Procedures set forth in IRC
Sections 6320 and 6330; and
c) New Documentation (now in hands of Internal Revenue
Service) supporting correct determination of Net
Income/Net Operating Loss; and
d) Incorrect Application of Net Operating Loss for
Carryforward/Carryback. [Reproduced literally.]
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be
granted where there is no genuine issue of any material fact and
a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(a) and
(b); see Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520
(1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994); Zaentz v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988). The moving party bears
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011