TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Nathan & Marie J. Yellen
Docket Number: 5373-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/30/2008
Pages: 22

UNITED STATES TAX COUR T WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 NATHAN YELLEN AND MARIE J . YELLEN , Petitioner s V . Docket No . 5373-07S . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent C.Q .T. STAT . S .T . JUDO FILE S O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Cour Rules of Practice an d Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Cou to petitioners and to respondent a cop transcript of the hearing of the above Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Chicago, 2008, containing his oral findings of at the conclusion of the hearing . t shall transmit herewith of the pages of th e case before Special Trial Illinois, on April 23, act and opinion rendere d In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a n appropriate Order and Decision will-be entered . (Signed) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . May 30, 2008 SERVED JUN - 2 2008 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen Jr . 2 April 23, 200 8 3 Yellen v . Commissione r Docket No . 5373-07 S 4 5 I . THE COURT : THE COU R HAS DECIDED TO RENDE R 6 ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OP I ION IN THIS CASE, AND 7 THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE C OURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 8 FACT AND OPINION . THE ORAL F I NDINGS OF FACT AN D 9 OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED U7 ON AS PRECEDENT IN AN Y 10 OTHER CASE . 11 II . 12 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax 13 Case, pursuant to the provisions of section 7463(f)(2) 14 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and 15 Rules 170 through 175 of the ~ax Court Rules o f 16 Practice and Procedure . See nd compare Rules 330 17 through 334 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 18 Procedure . 1 9 20 III . This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 21 authority granted by section 459(b) of the Internal 22 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 23 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 24 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, and 25 unless otherwise indicated, a1 section numbers refer Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 to the Internal Revenue Code, s amended, and all Rule 2 numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 3 3 Procedure . 4 IV . 5 Nathan Yellen appear d on his own behalf . 6 Marie J . Yellen did not appear . Karen Lynn Baker 7 appeared on behalf of responde t . 8 V . 9 This case represents an appeal b y 10 petitioners from the determination by respondent' s 11 Office of Appeals to proceed w ith the collection o f 12 petitioners ' outstanding liabilities for the taxable 13 years in issue by way of a notice of Federal tax lien . 14 In their petition to this Court , petitioners 15 placed in issue the taxable years 1988 and 199 2 16 through 1996 . In his answer t the petition , 17 respondent admitted that "the statute of limitations 18 has expired on collection of petitioners ' income tax 19 liability for the 1992 taxable year ." Responden t 20 subsequently provided to the Curt a Partia l 21 Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien, which was 22 filed with the Cook County Rec rder of Deeds , 23 demonstrating that respondent ad released the Federal 24 tax lien for 1992 . Counsel for respondent represented 25 to the Court that respondent ' slpractice is to abat e Heritage Reporting' Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 any outstanding liability for year in respect of 2 which the period of limitation on collection ha s 3 expired . Accordingly, the yea s in issue remaining 4 before the Court are 1988 and 993 through 1996 . 5 Before the Court is respondent's Motion for 6 Summary Judgment, filed Februa y 22, 2008, pursuant to 7 Rule 121, and supplemented Mar h 21, 2008, and Apri l 8 il, 2008 . As discussed in detail below, we shall 9 grant respondent's motion, as supplemented . 10 VI . 11 The record establishes the following : 12 Petitioners resided in the state of Illinois 13 at the time that the petition as filed with th e 14 Court . 15 Petitioner Nathan Ye lien is, by profession, 16 a certified public accountant . During his career, he 17 has practiced before the Inter nal Revenue Service . 18 For much, if not mos t, of her working 19 career, petitioner Marie J . Ye lien was employed by 20 Commerce Clearing House and Wolters Kluwer . 21 Petitioners' Liabilitie s 22 Petitioners' liability for each of th e 23 taxable years 1988 and 1993 through 1996 i s 24 demonstrated by a Certificatelof Assessments, Payment s 25 And Other Specified Matters (Form 4340) for each o f Heritage ReportingCorporation (202) 628-4888 1 those years . Those account transcripts establish th e 5 2 following : 3 Taxable Year 198 8 4 On December 30, 1996, respondent assessed, 5 pursuant to an audit deficient , tax of $3,958 , 6 together with statutory intere t and additions to tax 7 under section 6651(a)(1) for f ilure to timely fil e 8 and under section 6654(a) for failure to pay estimated 9 tax . After credit for withhol ing and a payment that 10 had accompanied an application for extension of time 11 to file, there was a balance d e . 12 Also on December 30, 1996, respondent sent 13 petitioners a statutory notice of balance due, i .e ., 14 notice and demand for payment .i See sec . 6303(a) . 15 Over time, some payments were made, but an account 16 balance has always remained . 1 7 18 Taxable Year 199 3 On May 19, 1997, petitioners filed thei r 19 return for 1993, reporting taxl,of $1,217 and claimin g 20 a credit for withholding of $1,093 . Petitioners did 21 not remit any payment with their return . 22 On August 18, 1997, respondent assessed tax 23 of $1,217 . Respondent also assessed on that same date 24 additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and unde r 25 section 6651(a)(2) for failure' to timely pay, together Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 with statutory interest . 2 Also on August 18, 1997, respondent sent 3 petitioners a statutory notice of balance due . No 4 payments were ever made, and a modest account balance 5 has always remained . 6 Taxable Year 199 4 7 On May 19, 1997, petitioners also filed 8 their return for 1994, reporti g tax of $2,498 and 9 claiming a credit for withholding of $1,379 . 10 Petitioners did not remit any ayment with their 11 return . 12 On July 7, 1997, res ondent assessed tax of 13 $2,498 . Respondent also asses ed on that same date 14 additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and under 15 section 6651(a)(2), together with statutory interest . 16 Also on July 7, 1997'I, respondent sen t 17 petitioners a statutory notice of balance due . No 18 payments were ever made, and a account balance has 19 always remained . 20 Taxable Year 199 5 21 On May 19, 1997, petitioners also file d 22 their return for 1995, reporti g tax of $3,558 .76 and 23 claiming a credit for withholding of $1,650 . 24 Petitioners did not remit any payment with their 25 return, but they were credited with a $180 payment Heritage Reporting, Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 that had accompanied the filinglof a request for an 2 extension of time to file . 3 On July 7, 1997, resp ndent assessed tax o f 4 $3,558 .76 . Respondent also ass ssed on that same date 5 additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and unde r 6 section 6651(a)(2), together with statutory interest . 7 Also on July 7, 1997, respondent sent 8 petitioners a statutory notic e of balance due . No 9 payments were ever made subse q ent to that notice, and 10 an account balance has alway s emained . 1 1 Taxable Year 1996 12 Pursuant to extensions of time to file , 13 petitioners timely filed thei r return for 1996 on 14 October 17, 1997, reporting t of $4,211 and claiming 15 a credit for withholding of $1 , 738 . Petitioners 16 remitted $1,000 with their re t rn, and they were 17 credited with a $1,000 paymen t that had accompanied 18 the filing of their first req u st for an extension o f 19 time to file . 20 On November 17, 1997 respondent assessed 21 tax of $4,211 . Respondent al s assessed on that sam e 22 date additions to tax under se 6 tion 6651(a)(2) and 23 under section 6654(a), togethe with statutory 24 interest . 25 Also on November 17, 1 1997, respondent sent Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 petitioners a statutory notice f balance due . N o 2 payments were ever made subsequ nt to that notice, and 3 a modest account balance has al ays remained . 4 Final Notice of Intent to Levy 5 Respondent's certified transcripts o f 6 account also demonstrate that o January 29, 1999, 7 respondent sent each petitions an intent to levy 8 collection due process notice, i .e ., a final notice of 9 intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing 10 (final notice) . See sec . 6330(a) . The final notice 11 included petitioners' outstand'ng liabilities for 1988 12 and 1993 through 1996 . 13 Respondent's certified transcripts of 14 account include an entry of Fe ruary 8, 1999 , 15 demonstrating that the certifi d mail return receip t 16 accompanying the final notice had been signed and 17 returned to respondent by the Postal Service . 18 Petitioners did not ]-equest a n 19 administrative hearing with respondent's Office of 20 Appeals in respect of the Janulry 29, 1999, fina l 21 notice within the statutory pe iod of time . See sec . 22 6330(a) . 23 Notice of Federal Tax Lie n 24 On May 11, 2006, respondent filed with the 25 Cook County Recorder of Deeds .n Chicago, Illinois, a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 notice of Federal tax lien . Th lien was filed in 2 respect of petitioners' outstan ing liabilities fo r 3 1988 and 1993 through 1996 . (P renthetically, we note 4 that the lien also included 1992, but, as previousl y 5 mentioned, respondent has admit ed that the statute of 6 limitations bars collection for the 1992 liability and 7 has filed a Partial Certificate of Release of Federa l 8 Tax Lien as to that year . ) 9 By notice dated May 1 2, 2006, respondent 10 sent to petitioner Nathan Yell n and separately to 11 petitioner Marie J . Yellen a N tice Of Federal Tax 12 lien Filing And Your Right T o Hearing Under IRC 632 0 13 (lien notice) . See sec . 6320( ) 14 In response to the lien notice, petitioner s 15 jointly filed with respondent Form 12153, Request 16 for a Collection Due Process Hearing . According to 17 respondent's certified transcripts of account, Form 18 12153 was received by responde t on June 15, 2006 . 19 Petitioners' Request for a Collection Due 20 Process Hearing indicated that petitioners took issu e 21 with both the notice of Federa tax lien and the final 22 notice of intent to levy . How ver, becaus e 23 petitioners' Request was not t i mely in respect of th e 24 January 29, 1999, final noticeilof intent to levy , 25 respondent's office of Appeals'ihad no occasion to, an d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 never did in fact, make any det rmination other tha n 2 as to the May 2006 notice of Fe eral tax lien . See 3 generally Moorhous v . Commissio er, 116 T .C . 26 3 4 (2001) ; Kennedy v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 255 (2001) . 5 In support of their hearing request , 6 petitioners cited various medic 1 problems and alleged 7 that the lien "has already destroyed our credit . " 8 Petitioners also alleged that t e filing of the lien 9 was inconsistent with their uncollectible status . 10 Administrative Hearing and Notice of Determinatio n 11 After various prelim nary matters extending 12 over a period of time, a face- o-face administrativ e 13 hearing was held on December 8,' 2006, betwee n 14 petitioner Nathan Yellen and Settlement Officer P .L . 15 Moret of respondent's Appeals office in Chicago , 16 Illinois . At the hearing, thejsettlement officer 17 requested documentation relating to Social Security 18 income and medical expenses . he documentation was 19 not provided when requested ; h wever, the settlement 20 officer extended the deadline at the request o f 21 petitioner Nathan Yellen . 22 Petitioners did not rovide the requested 23 documentation as promised ; rather, petitioner Nathan 24 Yellen requested another face-~o-face conference , 25 which request was denied . Heritage ReportinglCorporation (202) 628-4888 1 1 1 Petitioner Nathan Yel en then complained to 2 the Appeals Team Manager, who g anted further time , 3 including specifically for (1) he submission of a 4 power of attorney (Form 2848) a thorizing petitioner 5 Nathan Yellen to represent petitioner Marie J . Yellen 6 and (2) a claim for "innocent spouse" relief b y 7 petitioner Marie J . Yellen . 8 As of January 23, 20 7, nothing had been 9 submitted to the settlement of icer . Thereupon, on 10 January 29, 2007, respondent's office of Appeal s 11 issued a Notice of Determinate n Concerning Collection 12 Action(s) Under Section 6320 a d/or 6330 (notice o f 13 determination) . 14 In the notice of determination, respondent's 15 Office of Appeals concluded that withdrawal of the 16 notice of Federal tax lien was not in the Government's 17 best interest , stating as follows : 18 "We have determined hat the filing of the 19 tax lien was appropriate . The, Service followed all 20 applicable procedures in the fling of the Notice of 21 Federal Tax Lien . The tax lien is not recommended fo r 22 withdrawal . " 23 A statement attachedlto the notice o f 24 determination amplified the fo egoing determination . 25 The following statements are particularly revealing : Heritage ReportinglCorporation (202) 628-4888 12 1 "A copy of a complete collection 2 information statement was pres e hted . The collection 3 information statement revealed both of you ha d 4 sufficient equity in your pers nal residence to pay 5 the total amount due . The fin ncial documentation, 6 which was requested in our cor espondence to you dated 7 on November 8, 2006, was not p esented . " 8 "Your account has be n in temporary non- 9 collectible status before . Ho ever, to recommend your 10 account be placed in non-colle tible status again , 11 both of you would have to pro v de proof of your 12 household income and medical d C cumentation to suppor t 13 your health problems . " 14 "The liability wa s not disputed at th e 15 hearing . " 16 In response to the n tice of determination , 17 petitioners timely filed a pet tion with this Court . 18 See sec . 6330(d) . 1 9 20 VII . The Court may grant ummary judgment whe n 21 there is no genuine issue of material fact and a 22 decision may be rendered as a iinatter of law . Rul e 23 121(b) ; Sundstrand Corp . v . Co#imissioner , 98 T .C . 518, 24 520 (1992), affd . 17 F .3d 965 (7th Cir . 1994) . I n 25 deciding whether this standard is satisfied, we ar e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 3 1 guided by, inter alia, Rule 121 (d), the final two 2 sentences of which provide as f ollows : 3 "When a motion for s mmary judgment is made 4 and supported as provided i n is Rule, an advers e 5 party may not rest upon the m e e allegations o r 6 denials of such party's plead i g, but such party's 7 response, by affidavits or a s therwise provided in 0 8 this Rule, must set forth spec fic facts showing tha t 9 there is a genuine issue for trial . If the advers e 10 party does not so respond, the a decision, i f 11 appropriate, may be entered ag inst such party . " 12 See also Celotex Corp . v . Catrott , 477 U .S . 317, 32 2 13 (1986) . 14 Upon review of the r cord, and after hearin g 15 on respondent's motion, as supplemented, we conclud e 16 that there are no genuine issu es of material and tha t 17 respondent is entitled to judg, ent as a matter of law . 1 8 19 VIII . Section 6321 impose a lien in favor of th e 20 United States on all property and rights to property 21 of a person when demand for p yment of that person's 22 liability for taxes has been ade and the person fails 23 to pay those taxes . The lien arises when th e 24 assessment is made . Sec . 632 . Section 6323(a ) 25 requires the Secretary to fil notice of Federal tax Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 4 1 lien if such lien is to be val i against any 2 purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic' s 3 lienor, or judgment lien credit r . Behling v . 4 Commissioner , 118 T .C . 572, 575 (2002) . 5 Thus, a lien is a sec rity device that 6 assures the Government of its p iority over othe r 7 possible creditors . Elliott, ederal Tax Collections, 8 Liens, and Levies , par . 9 .05 ( d ed . 2005) . Unlike a 9 levy, a lien does not deprive taxpayer of property . 10 Id . ; see all so United States . Whiting Pools, Inc . , 11 462 U .S . 198, 210 - 211 (1983) . ~ 12 Section 6320 provide that the Secretary 13 shall furnish the person descr bed in section 632 1 14 with written notice of the filing of a notice of lie n 15 under section 6323 . Section 6 20 further provide s 16 that the person may request ad inistrative review of 17 the matter in the form of an peals Office hearing . 18 Section 6320(c) provides that the Appeals Offic e 19 hearing generally shall be co ducted consistent with 20 the procedures set forth in s ction 6330(c), (d), and 21 (e) . 22 Section 6330(c) pro ides for review with 23 respect to collection issues, the appropriateness of 24 the Commissioner's intended c llection action, and 25 possible alternative means oficollection . Section Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628+4888 1 5 1 6330(c)(2)(B) provides that the existence or the 2 amount of the underlying tax liability may b e 3 contested at an Appeals Office hearing, but only if 4 the person did not receive a notice of deficiency or 5 did not otherwise have an earlier opportunity t o 6 dispute such tax liability . Gdza v . Commissioner , 11 4 7 T .C . 176, 180-181 (2000) ; see e o v . Commissioner, 8 114 T .C . 604, 609 (2000) . Sec ion 6330(d) provides 9 for judicial review of the administrativ e 10 determination in the Tax Court 11 IX . 12 It would appear that petitioners seek t o 13 challenge the existence or amo nt of their underlying 14 liabilities . However, petitio ers may not do so by 15 virtue of section 6330(c) (2) (B . 16 Section 6330 (c)(2)( ) bars a taxpayer from 17 challenging the existence or a ount of the taxpayer's 18 underlying liability in a coil ction review case, such 19 as the instant lien case, if tie taxpayer had a n 20 earlier opportunity to dispute such liability . See 21 22 Goza v . Commissioner , supra ; S o v . Commissioner, supra . 23 Here petitioners had such an opportunity 24 when respondent sent them the final notice of intent 25 to levy in January 1999 . Petitioners could have, bu t Heritage Reporting, Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 6 1 did not, file with respondent request for a n 2 administrative hearing . If th y had done so, and if 3 respondent's office of Appeals had sustained th e 4 proposed levy, petitioners cou d have appealed to this 5 Court for review . Having fail d to do so, petitioners 6 are now barred from challenging the existence o r 7 amount of the underlying liabi ities . Sec . 8 6330(c)(2)(B) ; Hovind v . Commi sioner, T .C . Memo . 9 2006-143, affd . without publis ed opinion 228 Fed . 10 Appx . 966 (11th Cir . 2007) ; se . 301 .6320-1(e)(3), 11 Q&A-E7, Proced . & Admin . Regs . 12 Even if petitioners ere not barred b y 13 section 6330(c)(2)(B) from cha lenging the existence 14 or amount of the underlying li bilities, the record 15 does not demonstrate that petitioners raised an d 16 properly pursued that matter before respondent' s 17 Office of Appeals . See also RUle 121(d) . Indeed, th e 18 statement attached to the notice of determination 19 expressly states that petitioners did not . Thus, 20 petitioners may not do so now in the instant case . 21 Giamelli v . Commissioner , 129 I !T .C . 107 (2007) . 22 Even if Giamelli v . Commissioner , supra , 23 were not applicable, petitioners have not offered any 24 legitimate rationale to even suggest that any existin g 25 liability might be overstated or without foundation . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 17 1 See also Rule 121(d) . For example, a naked allegation 2 that a penalty is "excessive " des not present a 3 genuine issue of material fact . Id . 4 Even if we were to ad ress petitioners ' 5 generic statute of limitations allegation, the recor d 6 demonstrates that the period ofllimitations o n 7 collection had not expired as of June 15, 2006, i .e ., 8 the date on which respondent received petitioners ' 9 Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing . See 10 sec . 6502(a), generally specifying a ten-year period 11 of limitation on collection after assessment ; sec . 12 6330(e)(1), generally providin for a suspension i n 13 the running of the period of limitation on collection 14 for the time during which an a inistrative hearing, 15 and appeals therefrom, are pen ing . In this regard, 16 the record demonstrates that the date of the earliest 17 assessment made by respondent in respect of th e 18 taxable years in issue was Dece ber 30, 1996 . 19 Accordingly, because petitioners requested a n 20 administrative hearing prior t that date, i .e ., on 21 June 15, 2006, petitioners' reliance on the statute of 22 limitations on collection is t no avail . Se e 23 24 Picchiottino v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2006-231 ; Picchiottino v . Commissioner , 1 C . Memo . 2006-232 . 25 X . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 8 1 Petitioners also suggest that they are 2 entitled to an abatement of interest . See sec . 3 6404(e), (h) . 4 Petitioners have ne v r identified any 5 unreasonable error or delay in the payment of tax that 6 is attributable to an officer r employee of th e 7 Internal Revenue Service . But, regardless, the fact 8 of the matter is that petition rs never filed any 9 claim for abatement of interest In the absence o f 10 any such claim, this Court is n no position to review 11 whether, much less to conclude that, a failure by 12 respondent's Office of Appeal s to abate interest wa s 13 an abuse of discretion . See G6za v . Commissioner , 11 4 14 T .C . 176, 181- 182 (2000 ), holding that where the 15 validity of the underlying tax liability is no t 16 properly at issue, the Court w~ll review th e 17 Commissioner's administrative etermination for abus e 18 of discretion ; see also Kindre4 v . Commissioner , 45 4 19 F .3d 688, 696 (7th Cir . 2006), stating that "it would 20 be most difficult for either t e Tax Court or this 21 court to conclude that the app als officer might have 22 abused his discretion ; for the appeals officer coul d 23 not mistakenly reject somethi n which has not bee n 24 presented to him . " 25 XI . Heritage Reporting (202) 628- Corporation 888 1 9 1 Petitioners also sug g st that petitioner 2 Marie J . Yellen may qualify for relief under section 3 6015 as a so-called innocent sp use . However , 4 petitioner Marie J . Yellen neve filed with respondent 5 a Form 8857, Request for Innoc nt Spouse Relief, or 6 otherwise submitted a claim for "innocent spouse " 7 relief . Indeed, petitioner Mar 'e J . Yellen was not 8 present at the face-to-face hea ring and did no t 9 participate in the administrat i e hearing, nor did she 10 ever execute a Form 2848 (Power of Attorney) in favor 11 of petitioner Nathan Yellen . gain, in the absence of 12 any such claim, this Court is i n no position to review 13 whether, much less to conclude that, a failure by 14 respondent's office of Appeals to grant relief unde r 15 section 6015 was an abuse of discretion . See Goza v . 16 17 Commissioner , supra ; see also indred v . Commissioner, supra . 18 XII . 19 Petitioners have never proposed as a 20 collection alternative an instillment payment 21 agreement or an offer-in-compromise . They have 22 suggested, however, that becau4e of economic hardship , 23 all of their open accounts sho ld be placed in "no t 24 currently collectible" status . 25 Although petitioners submitted a Form 433-A , Heritage ReportinglCorporation (202) 628-4888 2 0 1 Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and 2 Self-Employed Individuals, petitioners did not submit 3 other information requested by respondent's Office of 4 Appeals related to petitioners' income and health . 5 Cf . Murphy v . Commissioner , 125 T .C . 301, 315 (2005), 6 affd . 469 F .3d 27 (ist Cir . 2006) . 7 If petitioners were economically challenged 8 and not in good health, those considerations would be 9 very relevant if we were reviewing a proposed levy , 10 rather than a notice of Federal tax lien . As 11 previously discussed, a lien does not deprive a 12 taxpayer of property ; rather, its sole function is as 13 a security device, preserving he Government' s 14 priority vis-a-vis other typesllof creditors , 15 specifically including judgmen~ lien creditors . 16 If petitioners' fina4cial situation were as 17 dire as petitioners allege, then it would not be har d 18 to imagine, for example, that judgment liens could be 19 filed against them . It is not unreasonable fo r 20 respondent to wish to preserve his priority vis-a-vis 21 other such possible creditors', Given the fact that a 22 Federal tax lien attached to a4ter-acquired property, 23 being first in priority, or at''ileast near the head o f 24 the priority line, is in the G vernment's interest . 25 Petitioners' allegation, made in their Jun e Heritage ReportinglCorporation (202) 628-4888 2 1 1 2006 Request for a Collection D e Process Hearing, 2 that the filing of the Federal ax lien in May 2006 3 "has already destroyed our credit" is unsupported . 4 See Rule 121(d) . Granted, the filing of any lien will 5 negatively affect a taxpayer's credit rating . But the 6 Congress must certainly have known that when enacting 7 section 6323 dealing with lien priorities . 8 In short, rejection y respondent's Office 9 of Appeals of petitioners' pro osal, based on a n 10 allegation regarding petitione s' financial situation 11 that the Federal tax lien be withdrawn was no t 12 arbitrary, capricious, or with ut sound basis in fac t 13 or law . 14 XIII . 15 In conclusion, we shall enter an order and 16 Decision (1) granting respondent's motion For summary 17 Judgment, filed February 22, 2608, and supplemente d 18 March 21, 2008, and April 11, 008, and (2) sustaining 19 the January 29, 2007, determination of respondent' s 20 Office of Appeals not to withd aw the notice o f 21 Federal tax lien for the taxab~e years 1988 and 199 3 22 through 1996 . In contrast, we do not sustain the 23 January 29, 2007, determinatio of respondent's offic e 24 of Appeals not to withdraw the notice of Federal tax 25 lien for 1992 . However, this Latter matter is moo t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 888 2 2 1 given the filing of the Partial Certificate of Releas e 2 of Federal Tax Lien, as previously discussed . 3 XIV . 4 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 5 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 6 (Whereupon, at 10 :20 a .m ., the bench opinion 7 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 8 9 // 1 0 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 / / 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888