- 5 -
Mrs. Magee could not leave a message because petitioner did not
have functioning voicemail. Additionally, petitioner, who had
Mrs. Magee’s telephone number, did not contact her after their
telephone call was cut off.
On August 3, 2005, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of
Determination Concerning Collection Actions under Section 6320
and/or 6330. On September 2, 2005, petitioner timely filed a
petition with this Court. In the petition, petitioner claims
that he did not receive a collection due process hearing.
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials and may be granted where
there is no genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be
rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(a) and (b); Fla. Peach
Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). The moving party
bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of
material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Craig v. Commissioner, 119
T.C. 252, 260 (2002); Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821
(1985). The party opposing summary judgment must set forth
specific facts that show that a genuine question of material fact
exists and may not rely merely on allegations or denials in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007