- 5 -
Ultimately, on October 4, 2006, respondent’s Appeals Office
sent to petitioners a Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330. The notice
of determination sustained the proposed levy.
The Attachment to the notice of determination, authored by
the settlement officer, included the following statement:
You stated that you were not interested in the setting
up of a payment plan. It was explained to you that [a]
payment [plan] could not be considered as you were not
compliant in filing all your tax returns. You were
still interested in the liability issue. The
Settlement Officer explained that you had prior
opportunity to question the liability issue and this
could not be considered at the hearing.
Petitioners’ Petition
On October 31, 2006, petitioners filed a petition with this
Court, appealing from the October 4, 2006 notice of
determination. The petition focuses solely on the existence or
amount of petitioners’ underlying liability for 2002.
Respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment
As previously stated, respondent filed a Motion For Summary
Judgment, which motion was subsequently supplemented. In his
motion, respondent relies on section 6330(c)(2)(B). In that
regard, respondent states, in part, as follows:
In both their CDP [Collection Due Process] hearing
request and their petition, the petitioners challenged
the underlying tax liability for the tax year 2002.
Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B), the petitioners
cannot raise during the CDP hearing the existence or
amount of the underlying tax liability if petitioners
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007