Estate of Nancy Sblendorio, Deceased, Michael F. Poppo, Executor - Page 6
- 6 -
there is no genuine issue of material fact, and factual
inferences will be read in the manner most favorable to the party
opposing summary judgment. Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
812, 821 (1985). When a motion for summary judgment is made and
properly supported, the adverse party may not rest upon mere
allegations or denials of the pleadings but must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Rule 121(d); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
We are satisfied that no genuine issues of material fact
exist and judgment as a matter of law is appropriate. Under
section 6330(c)(2)(B), a taxpayer may dispute the underlying
liability in a collection review proceeding “if the person did
not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax
liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute
such tax liability.”2 Respondent interprets “otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute such tax liability” to include a
conference with Appeals.3 Sec. 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced.
2 While Mr. Poppo alleges that he did not receive a notice
of deficiency, no notice is required where the Commissioner
assesses additions to tax under secs. 6651 and 6654 which are
unrelated to a deficiency in tax. Sec. 6665(b). Accordingly, we
do not address the applicability of sec. 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-
E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs., and the phrase “otherwise have an
opportunity” in sec. 6330(c)(2) to situations requiring a notice
3 Respondent argues beyond the facts of this case that an
offer of a conference with Appeals, even if the taxpayer does not
take advantage of it, would also preclude subsequent
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: November 10, 2007