Kuechenmeister v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 072618 FEDTAX, 24808-16 L
|Docket Nº:||24808-16 L|
|Opinion Judge:||Diana L. Leyden, Special Trial Judge|
|Party Name:||TOM J. KUECHENMEISTER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent|
|Case Date:||July 26, 2018|
|Court:||United States Tax Court|
Diana L. Leyden, Special Trial Judge
The petition in this case was filed on November 18, 2016, in response to a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (notice of determination). The notice of determination sustained a proposed levy with respect to petitioner's unpaid tax liabilities for 2011 and 2012.
On October 30, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment (motion). In his motion petitioner stated that he had provided respondent and the Court with all of the information possible regarding the collection due process (CDP) hearing. Petitioner further stated that he did not receive notice that a CDP hearing was scheduled and respondent had not provided him with evidence that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office of Appeals (Appeals Office) notified him that a CDP hearing was scheduled. Petitioner "seeks a summary judgment in favor of the petitioner that the respondent failed in the duty, in the responsibility, of providing a due process hearing for the petitioner."
On November 9, 2017, respondent filed an objection to petitioner's motion. In his objection respondent contended that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether petitioner was provided with the opportunity for a CDP hearing and that, therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate.
On November 9, 2017, respondent also filed a motion to remand, requesting that the Court remand this case to the Appeals Office in order for a new CDP hearing to be held. On December 7, 2017, petitioner filed a document recharacterized as his objection to respondent's motion to remand. Petitioner's objection continued to assert, among other things, that he was not afforded an opportunity for a CDP hearing.
By order dated December 13, 2017, the Court granted respondent's motion to remand and remanded this case to the Appeals Office for the purpose of affording petitioner a CDP hearing. On February 5, 2018, petitioner filed a response to the Court's order dated December 13, 2017, stating that he objected to the Court remanding this case for a CDP hearing and that petitioner "assume[s] from [the order to remand] * * * that the court itself is a hostile environment for the petitioner".
On March 26, 2018, petitioner filed a first amended motion for summary judgment...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP