Kevin F. Foley and Shula K. Foley - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          that a levy on petitioners’ residence was the only viable                   
               Petitioners contend that the filing of respondent’s tax lien           
          alone was sufficient to protect respondent’s interest.  The lien            
          itself, however, does not collect taxes owed but simply enhances            
          respondent’s priority position vis-a-vis other creditors.                   
               Regardless of our opinion, herein, petitioners effectively             
          obtained much of what they wanted--namely--a postponement of                
          respondent’s levy until 2007.  By requesting an appeal with                 
          respondent’s Appeals Office and subsequently filing a petition              
          with this Court, respondent was temporarily stayed from levying             
          on petitioners’ residence.  Sec. 6330(e); Davis v. Commissioner,            
          115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000).                                                     
               We hold that respondent’s Appeals Office did not abuse its             
          discretion.  We will deny petitioners’ motion for summary                   
          judgment, and we will grant respondent’s motion for summary                 

               2  Our opinion here does not necessarily mean that                     
          respondent may in fact levy on petitioners’ residence.  Pursuant            
          to sec. 6334(e), a taxpayer’s principal residence is exempt from            
          levy absent the written approval of a Federal district court                
          Judge or Magistrate.  We note that, in connection with a proposed           
          levy on a taxpayer’s residence, our jurisdiction under sec.                 
          6330(c)(2)(B) to consider whether an Appeals officer properly has           
          balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with the                
          concern that a collection action be no more intrusive than                  
          necessary would appear to be somewhat duplicative of the Federal            
          district courts’ jurisdiction under sec. 6334(e) also to review             
          and approve respondent’s levy on a taxpayer’s residence.                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007