TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Gloria Ann Johnson
Docket Number: 12061-12L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/03/2014
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 GLORIA ANN JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 12061-12 L. ) ) ) ) OR D E R 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 Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at New Orleans, Louisiana, 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 order and decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 3, 2014 SERVED JAN - 7 2014 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke December 13, 2013 3 Gloria Ann Johnson 4 5 6 7 8 9 Docket No. 12061-12L 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall 10 not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This opinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7459(b). Hereinafter rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure and section references are to the Internal Revenue Code. This case arises under the Court's jurisdiction to review proposed collection actions by the Internal Revenue Service, which have been sustained by settlement officers after hearings provided by Section 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code, when a timely petition is filed after a notice of determination has been issued by the settlement officer. A timely petition was filed after receipt 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 of a notice of determination by the petitioner in the present case, and at the time the petition was filed the petitioner was a resident of the State of Louisiana. In the present case the Petitioner filed delinquent income tax returns for the years 2003 through 2008. The taxes shown on the returns were not paid in full, because petitioner's withholdings were less than the taxes shown on the returns. The underlying liabilities in the present case involve the assessment of these taxes as shown on the return, which were not paid in full. 13 Petitioner would have the opportunity to seek review 14 of these liabilities in the present case if the 15 Petitioner had properly articulated an argument 16 17 18 19 20 21 relative to the underlying liability with the settlement officer in the context of the hearing provided to Petitioner under Section 6330. However, the Petitioner did not seek review of the underlying liability but rather in the petition filed in this case and in the interaction 22 with the settlement officer, sought a collection 23 24 25 alternative. Unfortunately the Petitioner has difficulty communicating with the Internal Revenue Service and 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 also with the Court and has never provided the underlying financial statement information, specifically Form 433-A, and other information requested by the settlement officer, in order to consider Petitioner's attempt to reach a collection alternative for the underlying liabilities in this case. We find this to be especially unfortunate given the fact that had Pet.itioner been able to provide this information, she probably would have been entitled to such alternatives. However, we cannot provide the information on behalf of the 13 Petitioner, and we can only direct her to pursue such 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 alternatives in the future. The present case comes to the Court in the procedural posture of a motion for summary judgment by the Respondent, pursuant to Rule 121. Respondent seeks judgment sustaining the collection action, which the settlement officer sustained after the hearing under Section 6330. The collection action in the present case is a levy, which is the basis on which Respondent tried to collect these liabilities for 2003 through 2008. Respondent's motion under Rule 121 is subject to the summary judgment standard as outlined 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 in Rule 121(b), which provides that a decision shall be rendered if the pleadings, other materials and affidavits or declarations submitted in connection 4 with the motion, demonstrate that there is no genuine 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 dispute as to any material fact, such that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. In the present case, because the Petitioner does not maintain any argument that she submitted the appropriate information to support a collection alternative, and the Petition has never actually argued that she does not owe the underlying tax liabilities, we believe the motions submitted by the Respondent with the attached information, meets the criteria of Rule 121 and is, therefore, appropriate for our consideration and we shall grant Respondent's 16 motion for summary judgment and enter a decision in 17 18 19 accord with Respondent's motion. Once again, we wish to state we find this whole matter to be somewhat unfortunate, because the 20 Petitioner did not file a response to the motion 21 22 23 24 25 except for a brief request that the Court have mercy on her, and give her a payment plan. Unfortunately, the Court is not able to create a payment plan out of whole cloth, when the Petitioner has failed to submit the appropriate underlying documentation to the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Respondent. We would hope that the Petitioner obtains the help of a tax clinic or some other professionals in the future, in order that she might reach a compromise with the Internal Revenue Service, but are left with no recourse in the present acw but to sustain the Respondent's proposed collection via levy, because Petitioner has simply not provided the appropriate information that would have allowed the settlement officer to consider her proposal. Without her having provided the information, we find no basis to determine that the settlement officer's determination was an abuse of discretion, which is the appropriate standard of our review of the settlement officer's activities. Petitioner does not maintain that the settlement officer has failed to review the administrative file or properly determine that the assessments in question were appropriate, nor does 20 Petitioner maintain that the settlement officer has 21 22 23 24 25 failed to balance the needs of a collection action against the possible harm to her. While there may, in fact, be harm to her, because the Petition has failed to submit the appropriate financial information, we simply are not 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 in a situation to determine that there was any abuse of discretion in the way of the Respondent's needs for collection against the potential harm to the petitioner. Once again, the Court finds this to be a somewhat unfortunate situation but given the record before us, we have no alternative but to grant Respondent's motion and enter a decision for the Respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com