- 5 -
Section 6320 and/or 6330. In the notice, respondent concluded
that all of the requirements for proceeding with collection had
been met and that petitioner had not provided a valid reason why
the lien should be withdrawn. The notice advised petitioner that
he had to file a petition in the United States Tax Court if he
wanted to dispute respondent’s determination.
On March 1, 2004, petitioner filed a complaint for review of
the determination in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona. The case was dismissed on June 20, 2005,
for lack of jurisdiction.
On July 25, 2005, petitioner filed in the Tax Court a
petition for lien or levy action. On March 22, 2006, respondent
filed a motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under
section 6673. Petitioner filed a response in opposition to the
motion in which he alleges, in pertinent part, that a motion for
summary judgment is an improper procedure for disposing of a case
in which the reviewing court was required to conduct a review on
the administrative record. Specifically, petitioner contends
that respondent’s summary judgment motion should be denied
because “it is an inappropriate procedure for disposition of a
record review judicial review of an agency decision.”
Subsequently, petitioner submitted an affidavit that was filed on
June 26, 2006, as a supplement to his response in opposition to
respondent’s motion. Neither petitioner’s opposition nor his
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008