TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Deborah Ann Henzes
Docket Number: 20560-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/02/2009
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 DEBORAH ANN HENZES, Petitione r V . ) Docket No . 20560-08S . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent 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 hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at . Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on November 19, 2009, containing his oral . findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an Order of Dismissal will be entered-- (Signed ) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e DATED : Washington,, D .C . December 2, 2009 SERVED Dec 03 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . 2 November 19, 200 9 3 Henzes v . Commissioner Docket No . 20560-08S 4 THE COURT : I . The Court has decided t o 5 render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, 6 (cid:127) and the following represents the Court's oral findings 7 of fact and opinion . 8 II . This proceeding was heard as a smal l 9 tax case pursuant to the provisions of § 7463(f)(2) of 10 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, an d 11 Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules Practice 12 and Procedure . See and compare Rules 330 through 334 13 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 14 III . This bench opinion is made pursuant to 15 the authority granted by § 7459(b) of the Interna l 16 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 17 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 18 . Hereinafter in this bench opinion, all section numbers 19 refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a s 20 amended, and all rule numbers refer to the Tax Court 21 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 22 IV . There was no appearance by or on behalf 23 of Petitioner . Russell F . Curtis appeared on behalf 24 of Respondent . 25 V . By notice dated and served June 15, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 2009, this case was calendared for trial at the one- 2 week session beginning on November 16, 2009, in . 3 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania . However, on October 8 , 4 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on grounds 5 of mootness, a copy of which was served by Respondent 6 on Petitioner by mail o n QtJZ~be 7, 2009 . In his motion, KAA~ 7 Respondent contends that this case should be dismisse d as moot "because the tax liability for 2004 and 2005 has been paid in full, and the proposed levy is no 10 longer necessary . " 11 12 By order dated and served October 14, 2009 , . the Court calendared Respondent's . motion for hearing 13 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at a time and date certain 14 of Wednesday, November 18, 2009, at 9 :00 a .m . 15 VI . . The facts relevant to the disposition 16 of Respondent's motion may be briefly summarized as 17 follows : Petitioner resided in the Commonwealth of 18 Pennsylvania at the time that the petition was filed 19 with the Court . On January 31,_ 2008, Respondent sent 20 Petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice, 21 of your right to a hearing, (final notice) . See § 22 6330(a) . The final notice reflected Petitioner's 23 outstanding income tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005 . 24 In response to the final notice, Petitioner 25 timely filed with Respondent a Form 12153 request for Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 a collection due process hearing . In the Form 12153, 2 Petitioner stated in part that "an installmen t 3 agreement was established with revenue agent at tim e 4 of audit ." Ultimately, on July 21, 2008, Respondent's 5 Appeals Office sent Petitioner .a notice o f 6 determination concerning collection action under § 7 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination) . 8 In the notice of determination, the Appeals 9 Office sustained the proposed levy . The summary of 10 determination stated in part as follows : "The 11 determination of the Appeals Office is to sustai n 12 Compliance's notice of intent to levy . Based on the 13 legal and administrative requirements, the proposed 14 levy action is appropriate . You have not met any 15 conditions to cease collection actions ." 16 The attachment to the notice o f 17 determination provided further explanation stating in 18 part as follows : "The information requested was never : 19 received . Without the information requested, we are 20 unable to. consider collection alternatives . We could 21 not reach an agreement, extend any relief to . you or 22 even consider any alternatives to the proposed levy 23 because after you requested an appeal and a hearing 24 was granted, you failed to cooperate . Under these 25 circumstances we can only sustain the levy by th e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 Collection Division . " 2 On August 20, 2008, Petitioner timely filed 3 a petition for collection review with the Court . See 4 § 6330(d) . In the petition, Petitioner again made 5 reference to an installment agreement . Thereafter, Respondent filed his motion to dismiss on grounds o f 7 mootness . Respondent attached to his motion a s exhibits a Form 4340 (certificate of assessments , 9 payments .and other specified matters ) for each of the 10 two taxable years in issue , i .e ., 2004 and 2005 . 11 Each transcript shows an assessed balance o f 12 zero . Each transcript also references an "unreversed" 13 pending installment agreement opposite a date after 14 the issuance of the January-31, 2008, final notice . 15 Pursuant to notice, Respondent's motion to dismiss was 16 called for a hearing at the Court's trial session in 17 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on November 18, 2009 . Only 18 counsel for Respondent appeared . 19 At the hearing, counsel for Responden t 20 stated that unassessed accruals for.2004 and 2005 are 21 de minimis (under .$1 .00 for both years in th e 22 aggregate) and will be written off by Respondent . 23 that basis, counsel urged the Court to grant 24 Respondent's motion to dismiss . 25 VII . The record demonstrates that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Petitioner' s assessed liability for each of the taxable . years 2004 and 2005 is zero . The record further demonstrates that the unassessed accrual fo r each year is truly de minimis and will be written off by Respondent . Accordingly , we approach Respondent's motion on the basis that Petitioner ' s liability for each of the years in issue , i .e ., liability assessed plus liability accrued but unassessed is .-a zero . Indeed , Respondent ' s motion urges dismissa l 5 7 9 10 on the ground that "the tax liability for 2004 an d 11 2005 has been paid in full and the proposed levy is no,, 12 longer necessary ." In Greene-Thapedi v . Commissioner , 13 126 T .C . 1 (2006 ), Judge Thornton , writing for a 14 majority of the Court in a reviewed opinion , held tha t 15 1) the taxpayer ' s challenges to the Commissioner' s 16 collection action (a proposed levy ) were moot becaus e 17 there was no unpaid tax liability upon which a levy 18 could be based , and the Commissioner would not take 19 any further collection action ; 20 2) this Court lacks jurisdiction in a lien 21 or levy case ( collection review case ) to determine an 22 overpayment or to order a refund or credit of'taxes ; 23 and 3) the taxpayer ' s case should be dismissed a s 24 moot . An order of dismissal was entered in th e 25 Greene -Thapedi case on January 13, 2006 . No appeal Heritage Reporting Corporatio n . (202) 628-4888 8 1 was ever taken, and that case has long been final . 2 The reasoning of Greene-Thapedi v . Commissioner , 3 supra , applies equally to the present case . We are 4 therefore obliged to grant Respondent's October 8 . ,5 2009, motion to dismiss 6 VIII . In conclusion, we shall enter a n 7 order of dismissal 1) granting Respondent's motion t o 8 dismiss on grounds of mootness filed October 8, 2009, and 2) dismissing this case on the ground tha t 10 subsequent to the filing of the petition, Petitioner's 11 tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005, the taxable years 12 in issue, were paid in full, and the proposed levy is 13 therefore no longer necessary . 14 IX . This concludes the Court's oral 15 findings of fact and opinion in this case . 16 (Whereupon, at 8 :29 a .m ., the bench opinion 17 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation . (202) 628-4888