Lynne M. Smith, Petitioner, and Stanley J. Smith, Intervenor - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
               case of an individual against whom a deficiency has been               
               asserted.”                                                             
                  *       *       *       *       *       *       *                   
                    8.  In this case respondent has not determined a defi-            
               ciency for the years at issue.  Therefore, respondent re-              
               spectfully states that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction over           
               this case.                                                             
               On February 28, 2007, petitioner filed a response to the               
          Court’s January 10, 2007 Order (petitioner’s response to the                
          Court’s Order) in which petitioner stated in pertinent part:                
               the question in the case at hand is whether or not the                 
               liability for taxes remains unpaid on the date of                      
               enactment of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of                     
               2006.  Petitioner maintains that the liability for                     
               taxes remains unpaid on the date of enactment because                  
               Respondent’s levy of escrow funds was wrongful, Peti-                  
               tioner was denied collection due process, and Peti-                    
               tioner has timely filed a demand to have the levied                    
               funds restored to the escrow account * * *                             
               On April 4, 2007, respondent filed a reply to petitioner’s             
          response to the Court’s Order (respondent’s reply) in which                 
          respondent stated in pertinent part:                                        
                    5.  First, respondent was not prohibited from                     
               pursuing collection action in this case under I.R.C.                  
               6015.  The restrictions on collection action while a                   
               claim for relief under I.R.C.  6015 is pending with                   
               this Court, imposed by I.R.C.  6015(e)(1)(B) (as in                   
               effect at the time of the levy), only apply to requests                
               for relief under I.R.C.  6015(b) or (c).  Because                     
               petitioner was requesting relief pursuant to I.R.C.                   
               6015(f), respondent was not prevented from pursuing                    
               collection action to collect the tax liabilities in                    
               this case.                                                             
                    6.  Second, in a stand-alone case such as this,                   
               where jurisdiction is predicated on I.R.C.  6015(e),                  
               the only issue is whether petitioner is entitled to                    
               relief under I.R.C.  6015.  Block v. Commissioner, 120                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007