Lynne M. Smith, Petitioner, and Stanley J. Smith, Intervenor - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
               T.C. 62, 64-5 (2003).  Therefore, petitioner cannot                    
               raise the validity of the levy in this case.                           
                    7.  Thus, as argued in detail in Respondent’s                     
               Response to the Court’s Order dated January 10, 2007,                  
               the Court does not have jurisdiction in this case                      
               because (1) the amendments made by the Act do not apply                
               to this case because the liabilities at issue were                     
               full[y] paid prior to the effective date; and (2) the                  
               Court lacks jurisdiction under former I.R.C.  6015(e)                 
               because respondent did not determine a deficiency                      
               against petitioner. * * *                                              
                    8.  Even assuming, arguendo, that the Court can                   
               consider the validity of the levy, the levy was valid.                 
                  *       *       *       *       *       *       *                   
                    11.  More specifically, on February 7, 2006,                      
               Revenue Officer Ebenhoch issued Letter 1058A, “Final                   
               Notice - Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your                   
               Right to a Hearing” (hereinafter referred to as the                    
               “CDP notice”), by certified mail to petitioner at 12                   
               Oxford Road, Slingerlands, New York 12159. * * *                       
               This letter constituted petitioner’s Collection Due                    
               Process notice for a proposed levy action to collect                   
               the outstanding joint tax liabilities for the 1998                     
               * * * and 2002 tax years.  Revenue Officer Ebenhoch                    
               also mailed a copy of the CDP notice to petitioner’s                   
               attorney, Philip J. Vecchio. * * *                                     
                    12.  On February 15, 2006, Revenue Officer                        
               Ebenhoch received the return receipt from the CDP                      
               notice indicating that the notice had been accepted for                
               delivery.  According to the return receipt, it was                     
               signed by Lynn [sic] M. Smith on February 14, 2006.                    
               * * *                                                                  
                    13.  On March 28, 2006, Revenue Officer Ebenhoch                  
               issued a Notice of Levy to Anthony Arcodia, Jr. to levy                
               on the escrow funds. * * *                                             
                    14.  On April 27, 2006, Revenue Officer Ebenhoch                  
               received two checks from Anthony Arcodia, Jr. totaling                 
               $68,597.57.  Of this amount, $50,537.97 was applied to                 
               fully pay the joint balances due for the 1998, 2001,                   
               and 2002 tax years of the petitioner and the inter-                    
               venor. * * *                                                           






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

Last modified: November 10, 2007