Kevin M. Moore - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          basis of:  (1) Petitioner’s financial information, (2)                      
          petitioner’s having taken no significant voluntary action (as               
          suggested) towards resolving his tax situation, and (3)                     
          petitioner’s having paid only $111 (via withholding) and $4,000             
          (via a 1999 estimated tax payment) towards assessed taxes of                
          $184,733 for 1997 through 2003, respondent determined that                  
          petitioner did not submit a viable collection alternative.                  
               At trial, the Court asked petitioner several times whether             
          he wanted to put on any evidence or had any evidence to submit              
          regarding respondent’s determination.  Petitioner did not take              
          advantage of any of the repeated opportunities the Court                    
          presented to him.                                                           
               Petitioner has failed to raise a spousal defense, make a               
          valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent’s intended             
          collection action, or offer a viable alternative means of                   
          collection.  These issues are now deemed conceded.  See Rule                
          331(b)(4).  Accordingly, we conclude that respondent did not                
          abuse his discretion, and we sustain respondent’s determination             
          to proceed with collection.                                                 
          II.  Section 6673(a)                                                        
               Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes this Court to require a                  
          taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed                
          $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous positions in the                     
          proceedings or instituted the proceedings primarily for delay.  A           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007