Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03187/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03187-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
F. W. Black
Appellant
Lauraine G. Black
Appellant
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3187

___________

F. W. Black; Lauraine G. Black, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 30, 2006

Filed: December 4, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

 F. W. Black and Lauraine G. Black (the Blacks) petitioned in the tax court for

review of a decision by the Internal Revenue Service Administrative Office (IRS AO)

allowing collection to proceed on their 1994 joint income tax liability following

“Collection Due Process” (CDP) proceedings initiated by the Blacks pursuant to 26

U.S.C. § 6330. The Blacks now appeal to this court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482

from the tax court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner

of Internal Revenue.

We review the tax court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and the

underlying determinations by the IRS AO for abuse of discretion. See Kindred v.

Appellate Case: 05-3187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2006 Entry ID: 2114746
-2-

Comm’r, 454 F.3d 688, 693-94 (7th Cir. 2006) (standards of review). The record

from the administrative CDP proceedings establishes beyond genuine dispute that the

Blacks knew or reasonably should have known that the notice of deficiency sent to

their correct address was intended for them, given the lengthy history of

correspondence between the IRS and the Blacks, who had consistently refused to

cooperate with the IRS’s repeated requests for substantiation of their 1994 deductions.

Thus, the IRS AO did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Blacks’ refusal

to accept delivery of the notice of deficiency did not invalidate the notice, and the IRS

could proceed with collection of the Blacks’ 1994 tax liability. See Robinette v.

Comm’r, 439 F.3d 455, 459 (8th Cir. 2006) (review in tax court and appellate court

generally limited to record created in administrative CDP proceedings); Patmon &

Young Prof’l Corp. v. Comm’r, 55 F.3d 216, 218 (6th Cir. 1995) (taxpayer should not

be allowed to defeat actual notice by deliberately refusing delivery of IRS’s deficiency

notice).

The decision of the tax court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2006 Entry ID: 2114746