TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Charles Thomas Watkins
Docket Number: 17512-10L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/17/2012
Pages: 8

UNITEÒ STETES TÄX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 CHARLES THOMAS ATKINS, Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Docket No 17 12-10L COMMISSIONER OF NTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) C RDE R Pursuant to Rul 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and I rocedure, it is ORDERED tha the Clerk ofthe Court shall transmit to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of th transcript of the proceedings of the above cas before Judge Diane L. Kroupa at Winston-Sal m, North Carolina on February 1, 2012, c ntaining her oral findings of fact and opinion. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opnuon, at ap ropriate order of dismissal will be entered grantin respondent's motiori to dismiss on ground of mootness. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa udge Dated: Washington, D C February 17, 2012 . $ VÈD FEB 2 1 2012 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kr up Watkins v. Commissioner Docket No. 17512-10L February 1, 2012 THE COURT: THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE AND THE FOLLOWING RÈPRESENTS THE COURT'S O AL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION. THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made ursuant to the authority granted in section 7459( ) and Rule 152. 12 . All section references are to the intørnal Revenue ],3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Code as amended and in effect for 999, 2000 and 2001, the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . This collection action irivolves collection by levy of Petitione ' s tax liabil tiès for the years at issue and is before the Court or Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on grounds of Mootn ss, filed December 13, 2011, as there are no un aid tax amounts for any of the years at issue. Petitioner appeared pro e, and Scott Little appeared on behalf of Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPI ION il The parties agree or do riot dispute the Heritage eporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 following facts: Petitioner resided .in No th Carolina at the time he filed the collection revie p tition in this case. Petitioner failed to file income tax returns for the years at isshe, so Respondént prepared substitutes for return. Petitione f iled to pay the assessed amounts . Respondent, the ef re, issued to Petitioner a Final Notice-Notice of Ihtent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing, for the outstanding income tax liàbilities. The notice adviséd Petit,ioner that Respondent intended o collect by iev the unpaid tax liabilities for the years at issue. Petitioner requested a hèaring yet failed to give ahy explanation what issue he;wanted to raise at the hearing. Respondent sent numerous letters to Petitioner asking Petitioner to pròvide his financial information so Respondent could. eváluhte any collection alternative Petitioner may ralse. Respondent also aske Petitioner t p ovide any additiònal information Petitioner an ed Respondent to consider in determini.ng whether to sustain the proposed levy action Petitioner pro ided no information and was generally nonr sp nsive. Instead, Petitioner paid the npaid amounts plus interest for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 each of the years at issue on June 9, 2010 . Respondent issued a Notide of Determination Concerning Collection Action (s) under Section 6230 and/or 6330 on June 30, 2010, determi ing that the proposed collection action was no longer warranted, as Petitioner had paid all atnounts plus interest for the tax years at issue. Despite Respondent's determ nation that he would ho longer need nor intend to le y to collect such llabilities, Pe -.itioner filed a etition with this C urt. In the etition, Petitioher stated that he disagreed with the tax liabilit anount. After filing the petition, Petitioner again was nonresponsive to Respondent's requ st . Respondent filed a Motion tò Dismiss on Grounds of Mootness on December 13, 2011. The Court directed Petitioner o respond or obj ct to Respondent's motion. Petitioner fÀil d to respond or objecti to Respondent s motion. We briefly discuss our jurisdiction before deciding whether to grant Respondent' motion. This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the Åxt nt authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Cömmiss.ioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985) . We have jurisdiction to redetermine a Heritage Reporting Corp ration (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 taxpayer's Federal tax liabilities in a deficiency proceeding where the Commissioner has issued a valid def iciency notice and the taxpayer ha timely filed a petition. Secs . 6212 and 6213; Rule 3 (a) , (c) . Our jurisdiction in collect on review cases is predicated upon Section 6330 (d) (1) (A) , which gives the Tax Court jurisdiction "with r spect to such matters" as is covered by the fina d termination in a requested hearing be ore the Appeals Öffice. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 3i7 (2000) . . This Court has recognized limits to its ability to provide relief in collectibn review matters under Section 6330 . For instance, i the Court has held that it lacks jurisdiction in a collebtion review matter proceeding to determine an ovekpayment or to order å. refund or cr dit of the ta es paid. Greene- Thapedi v. Commissio er, 126 T.C. 1 (2006) . The parties here agree that there is no unpaid liability for any of the yedrs at issue. As there is no remaining case or contÉov rsy to sustain this Court's jurisdi tion, this actjio l is no longer justiciable and we s all grant ResÒon ent's Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Mootness. See Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, supra. To reflect the foregoing, a appropriate Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 order will be issued dismissing this collection review matter on grounds of mootness . THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT A D OPINION IN HIS CASE . (Whereupon at 10:15 a.m , the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded. ) . // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 CHARLES THOMAS WATKINS, Petitioner, v. . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) ) ) Docket No 17512-10L ) ) Respóndent. ) C RDER Pui.suant to Rul 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Proc dure, it is ORDERED tha the Clerk of the Co shall transmit to petitioher and to respondent a copy of the pages of th transcript of the pro eedings of the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa at Winston-Sal m, North Carolina o February 1, 2012, còntaining her oral findings of fact and opinion. In accordance vnth the oral findings of fact and opinion, ad appropriate order of dismissal will be entered grantin respondent's motio to dismiss on groünd of ipootness. good) Diane L. Kroupa Diane L. Kioupa Judge Dated: Washington, D C. February 17, 2312 UNITED ST TES TAX COURT WASHIN TON, D.C. 20217 CHARLES THOMAS VATKINS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 17512-10L ) ) ) ) Pursuant to Rul 152(b), Tax Court ules of Practice and Proc dure, it is ORD.ER ORDERED tha the Clerk of the Co shall tra smit to pe itio er and to respondent a copy of the pages of th transcript of the pro eedings of the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa at Winston-Sal m, North Carolina o February 1, 2012, contai fact and opinion. ing her oral findings of In accordance w th the oral findings fact and opinion, an appropriate order of dismissal will be entered granting respondent s motio to dismiss on ground of mootness. (S ed) Diane L Kroupa Diane L. Kroupa Judge . Dated: Washington, D.C. February 17, 2012