Ragnhild Anne Westby - Page 5
- 5 -
The determination of the deficiency is premised upon an
Order which has yet to be issued by the United States Tax
Court and to the best of Petitioner’s knowledge, rests with
the computation unit. The Respondent’s proposed
computations exceed the scope of the Court’s Order regarding
Petitioner’s liability, if any. Moreover, the proceeding to
make a determination as levy either wages or to lien real
property is already pending, as to the initial determination
for the same tax years. Finally, the computation and Order
will impact other tax liabilities which are the subject of
other pending tax liens.
Not until March 8, 2007, in the Court hearing that was held
herein, did petitioner in this case raise any specific issue as
to her entitlement to interest abatement under section 6404(e).
Respondent moves for summary judgment on all issues.
Summary judgment may be appropriate where there remains no
genuine issue of fact and where the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Beery v. Commissioner, 122 T.C.
184, 187 (2004). Further, a party may not avoid summary judgment
by mere allegations of fact. Rather, by affidavit and documents,
the opposing party has a duty to “set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Rule 121(d);
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
Under section 6330(c)(2)(B) and (c)(4), petitioner in this
collection case is precluded from challenging the underlying tax
deficiencies redetermined by the Court relating to petitioner’s
Federal income taxes for 1988 and 1989. Having already
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 10, 2007