T.C. Sum m ary Opi ni on 20 14 -7 2

UNITED STAT ES TAX COURT

DANNY AL LEN COKER, Peti ti on er v . COMM ISSI ONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Resp on de nt

Doc ke t No . 26 93 3- 12 S L. Fi le d J ul y 16 , 20 14 . Dan ny Allen Co ke r, pr o s e. Hor ace C ru m

p andTho m as Alan Fri da y , forres po nd en t.

SUMM ARY OPINION LAUBER, Ju dg e: Thi s ca se was h eardpu rs ua ntto th e p ro vi si on s o f se ct io n 74 63 of t he Int ern al Rev enue Co de ineffec t wh enth e p et it io n was fil ed . Pur 1

All st atut ory

refe ren ces are t o the Int ern al Rev enue Co de ineffe ctat a ll 1 rel ev an t t im es , andall Ru le refe ren ces are t o the Tax C ou rt Rul es of P ract ic e an d Pro cedur e (Ru le s) .- 2 -

su an t t o s ect io n 7 46 3( b) , th e d eci si on to be en te redis no t re vi ewab le by any othe r co urt, an d thi s o pi ni on sh al l n otbe tre at edas p rece de ntforan y othe r cas e. Inth is co ll ect io n due pro ces s (C DP) cas e, pe ti ti on er s eek s re vi ew pu rs ua nt to sec ti on 63 30 (d )(1 ) of

th e d et erm in at io n b y

th e In te rn al Rev enue Serv ic e (IR S o r res po nd en t) t o uph ol d ano ti ce o f in te ntto lev y . Res po nd en t h as m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t u nd er Ru le 12 1, co nt en di ng th atth ere a re n o d is pu te d i ss ue s o f m at eri al factan d tha t h is act io n i n s us ta in in g the pro po se d l ev y was p ro pe r as a m at te r of law. We agre e an d a cco rd in gl y wil l g ran t the m ot io n. Bac kg ro un d Pet it io ne r fi le d aFed eral in co m e ta x re tu rnfor20 10 lat e an d fa il edto pay th e fu ll am ou ntof t ax sh own as due onth e return. Th e IRS subs eque nt ly ass es se d th e ta x a ga in sthi m . On May 28 , 20 12 , inaneffo rt t o c ol le ctth e as se ss edtax , th e IRS s en t p et it io ne r a Fi na l No ti ce o f In te ntto Levy andNot ic e o f You r Ri gh t t o a Heari ng . Peti ti on er t im el y subm it te d F orm

12 15 3, Re qu es t fo r a Co ll ect io n Du e Pro ces s o r Equ iv al en t Hea rin g. Inhi s re qu es t, p et it io ne r so ug hta co ll ect io n al te rn at iv e in th e fo rm

of an i ns ta ll m en t ag reem en t. On Au gu st3, 2 01 2, a s et tl em en t o ffi cer ( SO) fro m th e IRS App eal s Off

ic e se ntpe ti ti on er a l ette r in fo rm in g h im th athi s C DP he ari ng reque stha d b een rece iv ed . On Aug us t 7 , 20 12 , th e SO se ntpe ti ti on er a l et te r sc he du li ng a- 3 -

te le ph on e CDP h eari ng forAug us t 2 3, 2 01 2. Th e SO in fo rm edpe ti ti on er tha t, i n or de r fo r he r to co ns id er a co ll ect io n a lt ern at iv e, he ne ed edto pro vi de he r with a co py of a co m

pl et edFo rm

43 3- A, Col le ct io n In fo rm at io n S ta te m en t fo r W ag e Earn ers an d S el f-Em

pl oyed In di vi du al s, wi th supp orti ng fin an ci al in fo rm at io n. Pet it io ne r pr ov id edno do cu m en ta ti on an d p ro po se d n o c ol le ct io n a lt erna ti ve be fo re the sch edul edCDP h eari ng . He fail edto parti ci pa te inth athe ari ng an d d idno t re qu es t tha t i t b e res ch edul ed . The SO ca ll edpe ti ti on er an d l efta vo ic e m es sa ge ask in g tha t h e cal l h er b ackto res ch edul e th e h eari ng . The SO the n m ai le d p et it io ne r a “ la stch an ce” l ette r reque st in g tha t h e subm itfin an ci al in fo rm ati onif h e wis he d the IRS t o c on si de r a co ll ect io n a lt ern at iv e. Pet it io ne r subm it te d no in fo rm at io n andfai le d t o c on ta ctth e IRS reg ard in g h is cas e. Acco rd in gl y , on Octo be r 15 , 20 12 , th e IRS is su edpe ti ti on er a n ot ic e o f de te rm in at io n s us ta in in g th e p ro po se d l ev y . Peti ti on er t im el y so ug htrev ie w inth is Co urt. Inhi s p et it io n, p et it io ne r as se rts th athe “ ne ve r rec ei ve d the let te rs reque st in g a dd it io na l i nf

orm at io n.” The SO s en t thr ee l ette rs reg ard in g the sch edul in g o f th e CDP co nf

eren ce t o p et it io ne r ata Bl ue Sp rin gs , Mis si ss ip pi , add res s (B lu e Sp rin gs ad dr es s) , whi chis th e ad dr es s tha t p et it io ne r pr ov id edon hi s C DP he ari ng reque st . The SO al so m ai le d the Not ic e o f Det erm in at io n t o tha t ad dr es s. Th e Co urt h as th e Bl ue Sp rin gs ad dr es s i n i ts fil es as p et it io ne r’s ad dr es s.- 4 -

On M arch 27 , 20 14 , res po nd en t fi le d am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The Co urt o rd eredpe ti ti on er t o fi le a res po ns e to th is m ot io n b y May 1, 20 14 . This or de r advi se d p et it io ne r th at“un de r Tax Co urt Ru le 12 1( d) , jud gm en t m ay be en te redag ai ns t a p arty

who fai ls to res po ndto a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.” Pet it io ne r ha s re sp on de d n ei th er t o re sp on de nt ’s m ot io n n orto th e Co urt’s o rd er. Dis cu ss io n A. Su m

m ary Ju dg m en t an d S tand ardof R ev ie w The pu rp os e o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i s t o e xp ed it e li ti ga ti on an d a vo idco st ly, ti m e-co ns um in g, an d u nn eces sa ry tri al s. Fl a. Peac h C or

p. v . Comm is si on er, 9 0 T.C. 67 8, 6 81 (19 88 ). Und er Ru le 12 1( b) , th e Co urt m ay gra ntsu m

m ary jud gm en t whe n the re i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to any m at eri al factan d ade ci si on m ay be ren de redas am at te r of

law. Su nd st ran d C or

p. v . Comm is si on er, 9 8 T.C. 5 18 , 52 0 (1 99 2) , aff’d, 1 7 F .3d96 5 (7 th Cir . 19 94 ). Ru le 12 1( d) pro vi de s tha t wh ere the m ov in g p arty

pro pe rly m ak es an d s up po rts a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t “ an adve rs e p arty

m ay no t re stup on th e m ere a ll eg at io ns or d en ia ls of s uc h p arty ’s pl ead in g,” bu t ra th er m

us t s etforth sp eci fic fact s, b y affi da vi ts or o th erwi se ,

“ sh owi ng th atth ere i s a g enui ne di sp ut e fo r tr ia l.” Whe re (a s h ere) th ere i s n o d is pu te co nc ern in g the un de rlyin g t ax li ab il ity , th e Co urt re vi ews th e IRS ’ de te rm in at io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Go za v .- 5 -

Co m m is si on er, 1 14 T.C. 17 6, 1 82 (20 00 ). An ab us e o f di sc ret io n e xi st s wh ena de te rm in at io n i s arbi tra ry , cap ric io us , or wi th ou t s oundba si s i n fa ctor l aw. See Mu rp hy v. Co m

m is si on er, 1 25 T.C. 30 1, 3 20 (20 05 ), aff’d, 4 69 F.3d27 (1s t Ci r. 20 06 ). Bec au se pe ti ti on er fa il edto res po ndto res po nd en t’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, the Co urt co ul d e nt er a d eci si onag ai ns t h im forth atreas on alo ne . See Ru le 12 1( d) . W e wil l n ev erthe le ss co ns id er the m ot io n o n i ts m eri ts . W e co nc lu de th atth ere a re n o m at eri al fact s i n d is pu te an d tha t thi s ca se is ap pr op ria te fo r su m m ary ad jud ic at io n. B. Ana lysis The on ly que st io n i s wh ethe r th e IRS pro pe rly su st ai ne d alev y to co ll ect pe ti ti on er’s l iabi li ty. W e rev ie w th e rec or d t o d et erm in e whe th er: (1) th e App eal s of fic er p ro pe rly veri fie d tha t the requi rem en ts of a ny app li cab le law o r ad m in is tra ti ve pro cedur e h av e b eenm et ; (2 ) an y is su es pe ti ti on er ra is edha ve m eri t; an d (3 ) “ an y

pro po se d c ol le ct io n a ct io n b al an ces th e n eedforth e eff ic ie nt co ll ect io n o f ta xe s wi th th e le gi ti m at e co nc ernof t he pe rs on th atan y co ll ect io n act io n b e n o m or e in tru si ve th anne ces sa ry .” Sec. 6 33 0( c)(3 ). It i s cl ear f

ro m ou r rev ie w of the reco rdth atth e SO co nduc te d ath or ou gh rev ie w of tran sc rip ts of p et it io ne r’s acco un t an d v eri fie d tha t the requi rem en ts of- 6 -

ap pl ic ab le law an d a dm in is tra ti ve pro cedur e were f ol lo wed . The SO p ro pe rly ba lanc edth e n eedforeffi ci en t co ll ect io n o f ta xe s wi thpe ti ti on er’s l eg it im at e co nc ernth atco ll ect io n a ct io n b e n o m or e in tru si ve th anne ces sa ry . Peti ti on er d id no t ra is e a v al idch al le ng e to th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of r es po nd en t’s i nt en de d c ol le ct io n a ct io n. Th es e is su es are n ow d eem edco nc ed ed . See Ru le 33 1( b) (4 ). Pet it io ne r’s reque stfora CDP h eari ng in cl ud eda st at em en t tha t h e in te nd ed to pro po se anin st al lm en t ag reem en t. Sec ti on 61 59 auth or iz es th e IRS to en te r in to a writ te n a gr eem en t al lo win g atax pa y er t o p ay a ta x l iabi li ty in i ns ta ll m en ts if itco nc lu de s tha t the “ ag reem en t wi ll faci li ta te ful l o r pa rti al co ll ect io n o f su ch li ab il ity .” The d eci si on to acce ptor r ejectin st al lm en t ag reem en ts li es withi n the Co m m is si on er’s d is cret io n. Se e Tho m ps onv. Co m

m is si on er, 1 40 T.C. 17 3, 1 79 (2 01 3) (ci ti ng Kure ts ki v. Co m m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 2 01 2- 26 2, at*9 , aff’d, _

_ F.3 d _ _ (D.C . Cir . June 20 , 20 14 )). As a thr es ho ldm at te r, itis no t anab us e o f di sc ret io n fo r th e SO to de cl in e to co ns id er an in st al lm en t ag reem en t wh ere the ta xp ay er d oe s n otpl ace asp eci fic pro po sa l o n the tab le . See Mc Lain e v . Co m m is si on er, 1 38 T.C. 22 8, 2 43 (20 12 ); Ke nd ric ks v. Co m m is si on er, 1 24 T.C. 69 , 79 (20 05 ). Sta te d o th erwi se , itis th e o bl ig at io n o f th e ta xp ay er, n otof t he rev ie win g o ffi cer, t o s tart n eg ot ia ti on s re ga rd in g aco ll ect io n a lt ern at iv e b y m ak in g asp eci fic pro po sa l. Pet it io ne r ne ve r m ad e su cha pr op os al .- 7 -

Furth er, p et it io ne r ne gl ect edto furni sh Fo rm 43 3- A andth e und erl y in g fin an ci al in fo rm at io n re qu es te d b y th e SO. As a p rere qu is it e fo r co ns id erat io n o f anin st al lm en t ag reem en t, i t i s i nc um be nton th e ta xp ay er t o p ro vi de reque st ed fin an ci al in fo rm at io n tha t wi ll en ab le th e IRS to m ak e anin fo rm edev al ua ti on of hi s ab il ity

to pay . See, e.g ., sec s. 6 15 9, 7 12 2; Kin dr edv. Co m m is si on er, 4 54 F.3d 68 8, 6 97 (7t h C ir. 2 00 6) ; Ol se n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 14 F.3d14 4, 1 51 (1s t Ci r. 20 05 ); M ur

ph y v. Co m m is si on er, 1 25 T.C. at 3 15 . W e h av e h el d tha t n o abu se of di sc ret io n o ccu rs when anSO is un ab le to co ns id er co ll ect io n a lt ern at iv es be cau se of a ta xp ay er’s fai lu re t o p ro vi de fin an ci al in fo rm at io n. Se e, e.g ., Lance v. Co m m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 2 00 9- 12 9; Sch wers en sky v. Co m m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 2 00 6- 17 8. We lik ewis e fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n h ere. Pet it io ne r arg ue s tha t h e fai le d t o p ro vi de th e reque st edfin an ci al in fo rm ati onbe cau se he “ ne ve r rec ei ve d the let te rs reque st in g a dd it io na l i nf orm at io n.” The SO sen t thr ee s ep arat e le tt ers to pe ti ti on er re ga rd in g the sch edul in g o f th e CDP co nf eren ce an d l eft , at a m in im um , on e v oi ce m es sa ge forhi m . Thes e le tt ers were ad dr es se d t o p et it io ne r atth e Bl ue Sp rin gs ad dr es s, wh ic h i s the same addr es s t o wh ic h the SO m ai le d the Not ic e o f Det erm in at io n. Itis cle ar tha t p et iti on er re cei ve d the Not ic e o f Det erm in at io n b ecau se he att ach eda co py of itto hi s pe ti ti on . He has pro vi de d n o e xp lana ti on --b es id es th e g en eral all eg at io n i n h is- 8 -

pl ead in g- -as to why he rece iv edth atno ti ce b utno ne of t he let te rs m ai le d t o the sa m e ad dr es s s ho rtl y

be fo re. Co nt rary to o ur

Ru le s, p et it io ne r ha s “ res t[e d] up on th e m ere a ll eg at io ns ” o f hi s p le ad in g. Se e Ru le 12 1( d) . As we were p res en te d with n o c on tra ry

ev id en ce, we fi ndno ge nu in e d is pu te as t o any m at eri al facton th is po in t. Inan y ev en t, p et it io ne r do es no t ex pl ai n wh y he fai le d t o re tu rnth e SO’s ph on e cal l. Reg ard le ss of wh ethe r pe ti ti on er re cei ve d the let te rs (whi chwe be li ev e th athe di d) , he was in st ru ct edto cal l the SO ba ckby pho ne . Becau se pe ti ti on er fa il edto res po ndto th e IRS m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, we ar e le ft witho utan y

sp eci fic fact s s ho win g tha t the re i s a g enui ne is su e fo r tr ia l o n tha t, o r an y othe r, po in t. See Ru le 12 1( d) . W e th eref or e fi ndth atpe ti ti on er was aware o f hi s re sp on si bi li ty to p ro vi de fin an ci al in fo rm at io n t o the SO bu t n eg le ct edto do so . Fin di ng no ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n any resp ect , we wil l g ran t s umm ary jud gm en t fo r res po nd en t an d a ffi rm th e p ro po se d c ol le ct io n a ct io n. To refl ectth e fo reg oi ng , An ap pr op ria te ord er an d d eci si on wil l b e en te red .