- 5 -
(Sustaining the lien protects the government’s priority over
other creditors.) The Baltics offered no other collection
alternatives.
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
Vegas.5
Discussion
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