- 8 -
count. Referred him to the page of the appointment
letter which explained collection alternatives and what
is required in order for him to be eligible. The
taxpayer had no specific reason for not having filed
returns, and no financial information was submitted.
Therefore, the taxpayer was not eligible for a collec-
tion alternative.
The taxpayer raised the issue of the liability to the
extent mentioned above. There were no other issues
raised by the taxpayer.
3. Balancing of need for efficient collection with
taxpayer concern that the collection action be no
more intrusive than necessary.
The issuance of the Notice of Intent to levy is sus-
tained.
Although less intrusive alternatives such as offers and
installment agreements exist, the taxpayer’s failure to
file all returns, and submit requested financial infor-
mation balance against them; and so while more intru-
sive, the Government’s proposed levy action is appro-
priate and the action is sustained. [Reproduced liter-
ally.]
In reviewing respondent’s examination file with respect to
petitioner’s taxable year 1998, respondent’s counsel discovered
that that file shows that the notice of deficiency with respect
to petitioner’s taxable year 1998 that respondent mailed to
petitioner at his last known address was returned to respondent
by the U.S. Postal Service because it was unclaimed.
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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007