- 11 -
Statland. At the hearing, the Appeals officer requested a
current financial statement from petitioner and stated that no
collection alternatives could be discussed until petitioner filed
its delinquent returns. The Appeals officer’s position is
reasonable; it is consistent with established IRS policy that a
taxpayer must be in compliance with current filing and estimated
tax payment requirements to be eligible for collection
alternatives. See Londono v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-99.
Petitioner did not respond to the Appeals officer or provide the
requested information by the deadline set. The Appeals officer
concluded that the proposed levy action balanced the need for
efficient collection of taxes with petitioner’s concerns that the
collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.
Accordingly, we conclude that the undisputed facts establish that
the Appeals officer did not abuse her discretion in sustaining
the proposed levy action.5
On this record, we conclude that there is no genuine issue
of material fact requiring a trial, and we hold that respondent
is entitled to the entry of a decision sustaining the proposed
levy as a matter of law.
5 To the extent petitioner’s sec. 6330 hearing request and
petition can be construed as containing arguments pertaining to
its underlying tax liability, we dismiss these assertions given
that petitioner has provided no legal or factual support for
challenging its underlying tax liability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008