- 4 -
liability. Although she raised one collection alternative, an
offer-in-compromise, it was with respect to doubt as to
liability, i.e., questioning the underlying tax liability, and
not doubt as to collectibility.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and to
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be
granted with respect to a legal issue, if there is “no genuine
issue as to any material fact and * * * a decision may be
rendered as a matter of law.” Rule 121(a) and (b); Craig v.
Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252, 259-260 (2002); Sundstrand Corp. v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th
Cir. 1994). There is no disagreement as to any material fact,
and therefore this matter is ripe for summary judgment.
Section 6330(c)(2)(A) prescribes the issues that may be
raised by a taxpayer before the Appeals Office, including spousal
defenses to collection, challenges to the appropriateness of the
Commissioner’s intended collection action, and offers of
alternative means of collection. Section 6330(c)(2)(B) provides
that the Appeals hearing is not a forum for a taxpayer to contest
the existence or amount of the underlying tax unless the taxpayer
did not receive a notice of deficiency for the tax in question or
did not otherwise have an earlier opportunity to dispute the tax
liability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008