TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Jorge I. Mejia & Ana A. Miquirray
Docket Number: 15131-12SL
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/31/2013
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 JORGE I. MEJIA AND ANA A. MIQUIRRAY, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Docket No. 15131-12SL Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in Las Vegas, Nevada on September 17, 2013, containing her 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 will be issued granting respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, DC October 31, 2013 SERWD DCT 3.1 200 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 , Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa September 17, 2013 Jorge I. Mejia and Ana A. Miquirray v. Commissioner Docket No. 15131-12SL 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. These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This proceeding was conducted as a Small Tax Case under section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 15 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 16 17 18 19 20 21 Code in effect for 2007, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This is a collection review case involving a proposed levy to collect from petitioners their unpaid tax liabilities for 2007. This collection review matter is before the Court on respondent's 22 motion for summary judgment, filed May 15, 2013. 23 24 25 Petitioners did not file a response to respondent's motion, despite having been ordered to do so by the Court, nor did petitioners appear for 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 calendar call or the hearing scheduled on respondent's motion in Las Vegas, Nevada. Ric 3 Hulshoff appeared on behalf of respondent. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes the following facts: Petitioners resided in Las Vegas, Nevada at the time they filed the collection review petition. Petitioners late-filed an income tax return for 2007 and failed to pay the amount shown due on the return. Respondent thereafter assessed the amount shown on the return and issued a proposed levy, to collect the unpaid amount from petitioners. The levy notice advised petitioners that the proposed levy was to collect the unpaid tax liability for 2007 from petitioners, and informed petitioners that they could receive a collection hearing. Petitioners timely requested a hearing. Petitioners asserted in their hearing request that they should be able to make an ÊÈfer Ø'µd OU Êempromise. The settlement officer assigned to their case scheduled and rescheduled a collection hearing, and informed petitioners' representative that petitioners needed to provide current financial information before the settlement officer could consider any collection alternatives. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 The settlement officer also advised that petitioners needed to provide a completed Form 656 3 Offer in Compromise. The settlement officer gave 4 petitioners until a certain date to provide all 5 written documents. Petitioners provided no 6 7 information by that date, nor had respondent received any required financial information or completed forms 8 with accompanying documentation from petitioners by 9 the extended due date. 10 11 12 13 14 The settlement officer further explained to petitioners' representative that the settlement officer would make her determination based on the case file if petitioners did not send in the requested information by the new date specified. 15 Petitioners and their representative were all non- 16 17 18 responsive. Without any information or response from petitioners, the settlement officer issued a 19 Ûetermination ÑOtice upholding respondent's L 20 21 22 23 24 25 collection action regarding petitioners' unpaid income tax liabilities for 2007. Petitioners timely filed a petition with this Court. Petitioners asserted in the petition they did not have an opportunity to have a collection hearing, or provide the necessary documentation. As 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 mentioned previously, respondent filed a summary 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 judgment motion and the Court scheduled a hearing on respondent's motion at the Las Vegas, Nevada trial session beginning September 16, 2013. Petitioners did not appear at the hearing and failed to file an objection or response to respondent's motion. OPINION We are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See e.g., FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable 15 materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b). Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-82 (2000). We therefore must decide whether respondent 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or 2 without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1923 (1999). Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining that the collection action should proceed with respect to petitioners' unpaid liabilities for 2007. Respondent is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. We briefly explain how we reached our decision. First, the record reflects that petitioners never presented any financial information for the settlement officer to evaluate any collection alternatives. We have frequently and consistently held that an officer does not abuse any discretion by refusing to consider collection alternatives, if the taxpayer fails to submit the required and requested financial information. Sapp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-104. In addition, a settlement officer is not obligated to negotiate indefinitely, or wait any specific time before 1ssu1ng a determination. See 24 Kreit Mech. Assocs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 25 123, 134 (2011); Kuretski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 2012-262; Clawson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004- 106. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent and an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the determination set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection 7 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated May 9, 2012, upon which this case is based, regarding petitioners' unpaid income tax liabilities for 2007. The order will also grant respondent's motion for summary judgment. This concludes the Court's oral findings of facts and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com