TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Caroline M. Vesey
Docket Number: 9763-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/06/2010
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D .C . 2021 7 CAROLINE M . VESEY , Petitioner, V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . Docket No . 9763-09 L O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 of the above case before,Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at .San Francisco, California, on March 9, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with'the oral findings of fact and opinion, an and granting appropriate order will be issued withdrawing in part in part respondent's motion . 0 (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . April 6, 2010 SERVED APR - 7 2D 3 Bench Opinion by'Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzz o Caroline M . Vesey v . Commissioner Docket No . 9763-09 L Marc h 9, 201 0 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . Unless otherwise indicated, section reference s contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as .,amended, in effect for the relevant period . Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedur e This section 6330(d) proceeding is assigne d pursuant to section 7443A(b)(4) and Rules 180 through 182 . This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority grante d by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . This case is before the Court on Respondent' s motion for summary judgment filed October 8, 2009 . A hearing was conducted on Respondent's motion on March 8 , 2010, in San Francisco, California . Thomas M . Rohal l appeared on behalf of Respondent . There was no appearanc e by or on behalf of Petitioner, who resided in California a t the time the petition was filed but who is now locate d outside of the United States. On March 8, 2010, the Court received Petitioner' s letter dated February 26, 2010, which will be filed as o f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 the date received as Petitioner's Rule 50(c) statement . 2 The factual background relevant to a resolution of 3 Respondent's motion is easily summarized . The years i n 4 dispute are 2003 through 2006 inclusive . For each of those 5 years Petitioner filed a federal income tax return bu t 6 failed to pay the entire amount of the tax liabilities 7 reported on those returns . Assessments of those tax 8 liabilities, presumably together with related amounts, were 9 made in due course (the underlying liabilities ) . Becaus e 10 some or all of the underlying liabilities were due and owing 11 as of November 12, 2008, on that date Respondent filed a 12 notice of federal tax lien (the NFTL) with respect to those 13 liabilities . 14 Petitioner was notified of that event and of he r 15 right to request an administrative hearing to challenge that 16 action, which she did by request dated November 16, 2008 . 17 See section 6320 and 6330 . 18 At the administrative hearing, which was conducted 19 over the phone and through correspondence, Petitione r 20 challenged the amounts of the underlying liabilities but she 21 did not request a collection alternative . Petitioner' s 22 request that the NFTL be withdrawn relates directly to her 23 claim that the underlying liabilities are overstated . 24 Respondent's settlement officer requested additional 25 information relating to Petitioner's claim that th e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 underlying liabilities were overstated ; however, the 2 information requested was never provided . 3 Consequently, in a notice of determination 4 concerning collection action(s) under section 6320 and/or 5 6330 dated March 20, 2009, the filing of the NFTL wa s 6 sustained . Petitioner here challenges that determination . 7 In his motion as filed, Respondent requests (1 ) that the Court find that Petitioner may not in thi s 9 proceeding challenge the existence or amounts of th e 10 underlying liabilities, and (2) that the Court further find 11 that Respondent's determination to sustain the NFTL is not 12 an abuse of discretion . 13 So much of Respondent's motion as relates t o 14 Petitioner's entitlement to challenge the amounts of th e 15 underlying liabilities in this proceeding is now deemed 16 withdrawn . Consequently, we consider only whethe r 17 Respondent otherwise abused his discretion by sustaining the 18 NFTL and proceed by treating Respondent's motion in effect 19 as a motion for partial summary judgment on that point . 20 Giving due regard to the representations made in 21 Respondent's motion as now construed, the material s 22 submitted in connection with that motion and the statements 23 made in Petitioner's above-referenced letter, the Court is 24 satisfied that there are no genuine issues as to any 25 material facts relevant to the matter remaining unde r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 consideration . Consequently, disposition of the issue now 2 before us upon partial summary judgment is appropriate . 3 Rule 121(b) . Sundstrand Corp . v . Commissioner , 98 T .C . 518, 4 520 (1992), affd . 17 F .3d 965 (7th Circ . 1994) . 5 We begin by noting that Petitioner did not request 6 a collection alternative at the administrative hearing . 7 Therefore, we need not consider whether she may do so in 8 this proceeding . See Giamelli v . Commissioner , 129 T . C . 9 107 (2007) . 10 As an aside, we further note and appreciat e 11 Respondent's willingness to explore the possibility of a 12 collection alternative while this case is pending eve n 13 though the petition makes no reference to any . Respondent's 14 motion as now construed is resolved by reviewing whether the 15 settlement officer has otherwise complied with th e 16 requirements of section 6320 and 6330, and it is clear from 17 the materials submitted that she did . 18 Section 6321 imposes a lien in favor of the United 19 States upon all property and rights to property of a 20 taxpayer if there exists a failure to pay any tax after 21 notice and demand for payment has been made . This lie n 22 arises by operation of law and is sometimes referred to as a 23 "secret lien" . The underlying liabilities, of course, gave 24 rise to such a lien . In order to establish the priority of 25 a federal tax lien against completing claims of a taxpayer' s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 creditors, section 6323 allows for the public filing of a 2 notice of federal tax lien by the Commissioner . 3 That is what happened in this case . In 4 considering the ! appropriateness of the NFTL, the settlement 5 officer proceeded in the manner contemplated by sectio n 6 6330(c) . She verified that the requirements of applicable 7 laws and administrative procedures have been met wit h respect to the assessment of the underlying liabilities an d 9 the filing of the NFTL . She considered Petitioner's request 10 that the NFTL be withdrawn against the conditions that would 11 allow for such action, as set forth in section 6323(j) . 12 Nothing in the record suggests that her conclusion 13 that the NFTL should not be withdrawn does not have a sound 14 basis both in fact and law . See Freile v . Commissioner , 125 15 T .C . 14 (2005) ; Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T . C . 176 (2000) . 16 Furthermore, we are satisfied that the settlement 17 officer intended to address Petitioner's challenge to the 18 underlying liabilities, but Petitioner's failure to submit 19 requested information frustrated the settlement officer's 20 intentions to do so . Under the circumstances, whethe r 21 Petitioner's challenge to the underlying liabilities may be 22 considered in this proceeding remains to be seen . 23 Otherwise, we are satisfied that Respondent is 24 entitled to partial summary judgment establishing that the 25 determination to sustain the NFTL was not an abuse o f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 discretion . 2 To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order 3 will be issued withdrawing in part and granting in part 4 Respondent's motion . 5 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 6 and opinion in this case . 7 And I believe that concludes all of ou r 8 proceedings that were scheduled during this trial session . 9 So, with that, this trial session is adjourned . and let me 10 thank Ms . Schauff, my Trial Clerk; Mr . Andrews, my Court 11 Reporter ; and again let me thank the Marshal in th e 12 courtroom, and, Mr . Marshal, if you would send tha t 13 appreciation to your colleague who was here yesterday, I 14 would appreciate that . 15 THE MARSHAL : Absolutely . 16 THE COURT : All right . That's it . 17 (Whereupon, at 2 :13 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 18 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888