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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: November 10, 2007