Kevin F. Foley and Shula K. Foley - Page 5
- 5 -
petitioners had a balance due on the contract for deed relating
to their residence of $67,836, and petitioners’ residence had a
fair market value of approximately $460,000.
On June 19, 2006, petitioners timely filed a petition with
In their petition, petitioners alleged only the following
The Respondent erred in determining that a short-term
extension of time to June 2007 for the petitioners to
refinance or sell their home pursuant to a balloon
payment on their Contract for Deed and thereby raise
the funds to pay the liabilities was not an appropriate
collection alternative * * *.
Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, answers
to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and other material
show 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); Beery
v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 184, 187 (2004).
Under section 6330(d)(1), where a taxpayer’s underlying tax
liability is not at issue, we generally review respondent’s
Appeals Office notice of determination for an abuse of
discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 609-610 (2000).
In an Appeals Office hearing, generally respondent is
required to consider issues raised by a taxpayer including
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: November 10, 2007