- 8 -
Your Form 12153 also requested that consideration be
given to an installment agreement. An extension was
given to your representative to supply financial infor-
mation by February 28, 2006. Your representative
agreed that if the information necessary to determine
whether or not an installment agreement could be grant-
ed was not received, a determination would be issued.
You did not supply information for * * * [the settle-
ment officer] to consider.
You did not raise any other issues or collection alter-
natives.
Collection Action Be No More Intrusive Than Necessary
On February 14, 2006 your representative contacted
* * * [the settlement officer] to discuss your case.
He was advised of why we could not accept your returns
as an alternative to the proposed collection action
within this hearing. He agreed to try to submit finan-
cial information with a collection alternative by
2/28/2006, however, as of March 8, 2006, * * * [the
settlement officer] did not receive any further infor-
mation to consider. You have not offered any collec-
tion alternatives during the CDP hearing process nor
did you submit any financial information. As discussed
above, the assessments at issue are valid. Therefore,
given your failure to propose any collection alterna-
tives, the lien balances the need for efficient collec-
tion with your concern that any collection action be no
more intrusive than necessary. [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). We
conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact
regarding the questions raised in respondent’s motion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011