- 4 -
The moving party has the burden of “showing” the absence of
a genuine issue as to any material fact. See Espinoza v.
Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412, 416 (1982) (and cases cited therein).
The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all
justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Adickes v.
S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-159 (1970). There is,
however, no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence
favoring the nonmoving party for the finder of fact to find in
favor of the nonmoving party. First Natl. Bank of Ariz. v.
Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-289 (1968). The nonmovant’s
evidence must be more than merely colorable. Dombrowski v.
Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 84 (1967) (per curiam). If the
nonmovant’s evidence is not significantly probative, summary
judgment may be granted. First Natl. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities
Serv. Co., supra at 290. Rule 121(d) provides that when a
properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the
adverse party “must set forth specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial.”
Procedure Under Section 6330
Section 6330 entitles a taxpayer to notice of his right to
request a hearing with the IRS Office of Appeals after notice of
the Commissioner’s intent to levy on his property and rights to
property in furtherance of the collection of unpaid Federal
taxes. The taxpayer requesting the hearing may raise any
relevant issue with regard to the Commissioner’s intended
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007