- 11 -
concern that collection action be no more intrusive
than necessary. Taxpayer [sic] did not propose any
acceptable collection alternatives.
The notice of determination also addresses the other claims
made by petitioners in their request for a hearing, in support of
their assertion that the proposed levy was inappropriate. First,
the notice notes that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
held in Mekulsia v. Commissioner, 389 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2004),
that the taxpayer was not entitled to an abatement of interest.
Second, the notice states that petitioners never established that
their facts did not support the imposition of interest under
section 6621(c). Third, the notice indicates that petitioners
never discussed at the hearing their claim that they were not
given an opportunity to be heard during the examination and,
hence, that Driver considered that issue to be abandoned.
OPINION
This case is yet another in a long list of cases brought in
this Court involving respondent’s proposal to levy on the assets
of a partner in a Hoyt partnership to collect Federal income
taxes attributable to the partner’s participation in the
partnership. In each of the other prior cases, all of which were
brought by Merriam as either counsel or co-counsel, this Court
has sustained respondent’s right to levy on the assets of the
petitioning taxpayer (or, in the case of joint returns, the
petitioning taxpayers). See Hansen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007