- 5 -
were the underlying liability for additions to tax and
respondent’s failure to consider his arguments with respect to
reasonable cause. A settlement officer for respondent then
reviewed the request and determined that he could not consider
the underlying liability because it had already been considered
in an Appeals conference. On June 1, 2005, the settlement
officer issued the notice of determination indicating that since
the underlying liability had been raised previously in a
conference with Appeals, it could not be raised again in a
collection review proceeding and that Mr. Poppo had not raised
any collection alternatives.
In response to the notice of determination, Mr. Poppo filed
a petition with this Court on July 5, 2005. Mr. Poppo again
challenges the underlying liability for the additions to tax,
arguing that there was reasonable cause to excuse the late filing
and that the additions were assessed without a notice of
deficiency. Mr. Poppo further alleges that the estate was never
provided a hearing with respondent’s Appeals Office.
Discussion
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. 12 F.3d 965 (7th
Cir. 1994). The moving party bears the burden of proving that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007