- 9 -
correspondence under certain circumstances. Katz v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 337-338 (2000); sec.
301.6330-1(d)(2), Q&A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs. The undisputed
facts establish that petitioner’s representative agreed to
participate and did participate in a telephone section 6330
hearing with the Appeals officer.4
Petitioner did not respond to respondent’s motion for
summary judgment and, consequently, has offered no discernable
argument with regard to the alleged error in respondent’s
determination. In the petition petitioner does not mention any
specific Code provisions, rules, or regulations that respondent’s
determination allegedly violates, and petitioner does not set out
any specific facts. Rule 331(b)(4) and (5) requires that a
petition in a levy action contain “Clear and concise assignments
of each and every error which the petitioner alleges to have been
committed in the notice of determination” as well as “Clear and
concise lettered statements of the facts on which the petitioner
bases each assignment of error.” The petition must contain
sufficient allegations of fact to permit the Court to determine
whether the Commissioner can proceed with the collection of the
taxpayer’s tax liabilities. See Poindexter v. Commissioner, 122
T.C. 280, 285 (2004), affd. 132 Fed. Appx. 919 (2d Cir. 2005).
4 We note that the exhibits attached to the motion for
summary judgment do not establish that petitioner at any time
requested a face-to-face sec. 6330 hearing.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008