- 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