- 9 -
respondent’s proposed levy was pending. Other than noting his
general objection to the situation, petitioner provides no basis
for his complaint. His position suggests that the NFTL is not
valid, but given the focus of the above-referenced notice of
determination, the validity of the NFTL as a collection device
is not before us. Even if it were, it is obvious that
simultaneously proceeding with both collection devices
invalidates neither. The timing of the filing of the NFTL is
consistent with the provisions of section 6320 as well as section
6321,7 and does not violate any of the provisions of section
6330.8 To the extent that petitioner, if only by implication,
suggests the contrary, the fact that the NFTL was filed when it
was filed provides no basis for finding that respondent’s
determination to proceed with collection by levy of petitioner’s
1999 tax liability is an abuse of discretion.
7 Sec. 6321 provides: “If any person liable to pay any tax
neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount
(including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or
assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in
addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States
upon all property and rights to property, whether real or
personal, belonging to such person.”
8 Upon a timely request for an administrative hearing in
response to a notice of intent to levy, only the levy actions
that are the subject of the requested hearing are suspended. See
also sec. 301.6330-1(g)(2), Q&A-G3, Proced. & Admin. Regs., which
provides that respondent may file notices of Federal tax lien for
tax periods and taxes, whether or not covered by a previously
issued notice of intent to levy for the same periods and taxes.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007