Peter P. Baltic and Karen R. Baltic - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          (Sustaining the lien protects the government’s priority over                
          other creditors.)  The Baltics offered no other collection                  
               The Baltics now argue that the settlement officer’s refusal            
          to consider the OIC-DATL herself,4 or at least to wait before               
          issuing the notice of determination until the other parts of the            
          IRS finished looking at the OIC-DATL and amended return, was an             
          abuse of discretion.  The Commissioner moved for summary                    
          judgment, and the motion was argued during a trial session in Las           
               Summary judgment is appropriate where it is shown that                 
          “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a               
          decision may be rendered as a matter of law.”  Rule 121(b); Fla.            
          Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).  Summary              
          judgment is proper here since the parties don’t dispute the facts           
          at all, but disagree only about the law:  Did the settlement                

               4 Sec. 6133(k)(1) generally blocks the IRS from collecting             
          taxes by levy (though not by lien) while an OIC is pending.  The            
          Baltics’ very narrow challenge is not to the IRS’s decision to              
          collect by levy--any levy to collect taxes owed for any of the              
          years covered by their OIC is postponed by sec. 6331(k)(1)--but             
          to the settlement officer’s decision that she herself would not             
          consider their OIC-DATL as a collection alternative during the              
          CDP process.                                                                
               5 The Baltics were residents of Ohio when they filed their             
          petition, though they chose Las Vegas as their place of trial.              
          Unless the parties stipulate to the contrary, any appeal will go            
          to the Sixth Circuit.  Sec. 7482(b)(1)(A) and (2).                          

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

Last modified: March 27, 2008