- 10 -
2) No other substantive issues were raised.
BALANCING THE NEED FOR EFFICIENT COLLECTION OF THE TAX
WITH LEGITIMATE TAXPAYER CONCERN THAT COLLECTION AC-
TIONS BE NO MORE INTRUSIVE THAN NECESSARY
Without question, the proposed levy would have been
very intrusive, since it would have withdrawn funds
that may have been needed to provide for basic health
and welfare needs of the family, or production of
income, thereby creating a potential financial hard-
ship.
Therefore, it is the policy of the Internal Revenue
Service to provide individual taxpayers ample opportu-
nity to resolve their tax problems voluntarily before
such action becomes necessary.
The file indicates that the Service made multiple,
unsuccessful attempts to resolve your accounts on a
mutually agreeable basis before levy action was pro-
posed.
Appeals has determined that issuance of the Notice of
Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing was appro-
priate in your case, absent your cooperation to file
returns or submit financial information. Thus, levy
appears to be the only efficient method to collect the
tax. [Reproduced literally.]
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).
In support of his position that respondent’s motion should
be denied, petitioner argues that in determining whether to grant
respondent’s motion the Court may not consider (1) the 2001
notice of deficiency and the 2002 notice of deficiency and
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007