TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Louis Edward Laurent
Docket Number: 19004-17L
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/03/2019
Pages: 6

SD UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 LOUIS EDWARD LAURENT, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 19004-17 L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Chief Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Dallas, Texas, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order and Decision will be entered. Dated: Washington, D.C. December 3, 2019 (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge SERVED Dec 04 2019 Bench Opinion by Chief Special Trial Judge Lewis R. 3 Carluzzo November 20, 2019 Louis Edward Laurent v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 19004-17L - THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion (bench opinion). Section references made in this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 11 12 amended, in effect for the relevant period, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 13 Procedure. 14 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 15 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. The 16 decision to be entered in this case shall not be treated 17 as precedent for any other case, and except as provided in 18 Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as 19 authority. 20 21 22 This section 6330(d) case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment filed April 11, 2018. By Order dated April 13, 2018, petitioner was 23 directed to respond to respondent's motion, but he has 24 25 failed to do so. We consider petitioner's failure to respond to respondent's motion to be an indication that 19733406-2250|operationseescril:ers.net|www.escribersaet 4 there is no dispute with respect to any of the facts recited by respondent in that motion. By order dated August 27, 2018, respondent's motion was assigned to me for disposition. See sec. 7443A(b)(7); Rule 182. The hearing was conducted on respondent's motion in Dallas, Texas, on November 18, 2019. Justin C. Barnhill appeared on behalf of respondent, and argued in support of the motion. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The facts relied upon by respondent in support 11 of motion are easily summarized. By letter dated November 12 13 22, 2016, petitioner was advised that respondent had filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL or proposed collection 14 action), in order to collect certain of petitioner's then 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 outstanding federal tax liabilities (underlying liabilities). That letter also advised petitioner of his right to challenge that proposed collection action by requesting an administrative hearing, which he did. See sec. 6320(a) and (b). As it turned out, among the issues that could have been raised at the administrative hearing, see sec. 6330(c)(2), the only issue petitioner raised at the 23 administrative hearing was his entitlement to a collection 24 alternative to the NFTL. Whether petitioner actually 25 submitted a collection alternative to respondent's (973)406-2250loperations®escribersaet|www.escribers.net 5 settlement officer during the administrative hearing is not entirely clear. According to respondent, he did not. We note that petitioner's request for the administrative hearing references an offer in compromise, but it appears that the offer in compromise was made and rejected before the procedures contemplated by section 6320 were started. Whether in response to any request for a collection alternative that petitioner might have made, or perhaps routine under such circumstances, respondent's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 settlement officer requested certain financial information 11 12 from petitioner, but petitioner refused or failed to submit any. Having received no financial information from 13 petitioner, in due course, respondent's settlement officer 14 sustained the proposed collection action and concluded the 15 administrative hearing. 16 Specifically, in a Notice of Determination 17 Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 18 19 20 21 6330, dated August 3, 2017 (notice), respondent determined that the NFTL is an appropriate collection action with respect to the underlying liabilities. In the petition that initiated this proceeding, 22 petitioner challenges the determination made in the 23 notice, but he has provided little, if anything, to 24 25 support that challenge, either in the petition or elsewhere in the record. That being so, and taking into (973)406-2250loperations®eretibersaet|www.escribersnet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 account all of the circumstances, there is rea'lly very little for the Cáurt to decide. Petitioner did not challenge the existence or the amounts of the underlying liabilities during the administrative hearing, so we need not and will not conduct any review of those liabilities in this proceeding. See Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107(2007). Furthermore, petitioner did not submit the requested financial information in connection with any collection alternative that he might have made, so 10 respondent's failure to consider any collection 11 alternatives that might have been made is hardly an abuse 12 of discretion. See Olsen v. United States, 414 E.3d 144 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (1st Cir. 2005); Yoel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo, 2012- 222; Sapp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-104. Otherwise, and in all other respects, respondent has shown that he has satisfied the procedural requirements imposed upon him by section 6320 and 6330, and petitioner does not suggest otherwise. The Court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in this case, and for the foregoing reasons, that respondent is entitled to decision as a matter of law. Consequently, disposition of this case upon respondent's motion is appropriate. See Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520(1992) aff'd, 17 F.3d 965(7th Cir. 1994). It further Cribers 7 )406-2250|óperat ns®escribers.net (www.eséribers.net 7 follows that respondent's motion is well made, and should be granted. In closing, we think it appropriate to note that the resolution of this matter says nothing about whether petitioner may or should pursue any rights or remedies that he might have regarding collection of the underlying liabilities independent of this proceeding. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order and decision will be entered granting respondent's motion, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and allowing respondent to proceed with collection as determined in the notice. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact, and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (973)406-2250|operations®escribers.net|www.esaibers.net