- 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