TAX COURT OPINION

Case: David Peterson
Docket Number: 24315-13L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/05/2018
Pages: 10

ALS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 DAVID PETERSON, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 24315-13 L. ) ) ) ) ORDER 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 hearing in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Miami, Florida containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which this 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 5, 2018 SERVED Jan 08 2018 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bench Opinion by1Judge Joseph Robert Goeke December 8, 2017 David Peterson v. Commissioner of Intern.a1 Revenue Docket No. 24315-13L 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 not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. 10 The present case is beföre the Court based upon 11 cross-motions for summary judgment filéd pursuant to Tax 12 Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 121. Hereinafter 13 Rule. references are to the Tax Court Rules of .Practice and 14 Procedure. This opinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 15 16 17 18 and Internal Revenue Code section 7459(b). Hereinafter section references are to the Internal Revenue Code. The facts which form the underlying basis fo the parties' cross-motion for summary judgment include two 19 stipulations of fact and declarations and other exhibits 20 attached to the parties' motions. The procedural hi tory 21 of this case derits some discussion. 22 23 This is a case based upon respondent's efforts to collect a tax liability., based upon the income tax for 24 the year 2007. At the time the petitioner filed his 25 petition in this case, he was a resident of Florida. He 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 did not file an income tax return for 2007. He did work for a company called Total Health and Rejuvenation Center Inc: during the 2007 taxable year, and he did receive income from that company in thaË year. The case was originally submitted for decision witho.ut trial under Rule 122 on Se Éember 22nd, 2014. Another division of this court issued an opinion in the case and remanded the case back for further consideration pursuant to section.6330 and for clarification of the 10 record concerning whether the notice of deficiency was 11 sent to the petitioner for 2007. See Peterson v. 12 Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-17. Following the remand of 13 ~ that case to the appeals division of the Internal Revenue 14 Service, a supplemental notice of determination concerning 15 collection action under 6320 and/or 6330 (supplemental 16 notice) was issued sustaining the filing of the Federal 17 tax lien for the petitioner's 2007 taxable year. 18 The settlement officer had obtained a 19 declaration from David M. Dahl, an employee of the U.S. 20 . Postal Service, who signed the certified mail list for the 21 'notice of deficiency when it was originally issued to the 22 petitioner. The notice of deficiency was mailed by the 23 24 respondent to the petitioner on June 14th, 2010 based upon this certified mail list. The notice of deficiency 25 determined a deficiency in income tax based upon the receipt of nonemployee compensation income of $1.1, 068 as well as the addition to tax under section 665.1 (a) (1) (2) 5 and the addition to tax under section 6654. The petitioner did not file a petition contesting this liability. He has maintained that the notice of deficiency was not properly mailed to him, and most recently at the trial of this case after the remand, he maintained that the notice- o.f deficiency was signed by a person who was deceased at the time it was issued and, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 therefore, was fraudulently signed and mailed to him. At 11 the most recent trial of this case the petitioner did not 12 maintain that the notice of deficiency was not mailed to 13 him as he had previously maintained. 14 15 A notice o.f Federal tax lien, a notice f your right to a hearing dated February 26, 2013 was issued to 16 the petitioner's last known address based upon the 2007 17 income tax liability following the issuance of the hotice 18 of deficiency. 19 20 On April 4th, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service received from the petition a Form 12153, Request for 21 Collection Due Pr.ocess or Ecluivalent "Hearing. Petitioner 22 - sought, amoñg other thing.s, verification that the IRS had 23 followed all p'roper procedure. He also said he wished to 24 challenge Ehe underlying tax liability. However, when 25 given the opport.unity to do that by the settlement officer and by this Court, he failed to produce any evidence that would contest the fact that he owed taxes on the money he received in 2007, and he had previously stipulated that he did receive that money for working for Total Health and 6 Rejuvenation Center Inc. On May 3rd, 2013, the appeals division of the IRS mailed a letter to the petitioner which acknowledged receipt of his Form 12153. The .letter sent to the petitioner include·d Publication 4165, An Introduction to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Collection Due Process Hearings, and Notice 1016, which 11 12 13 14 informed the petitioner how to stop the running of interest on his account. On June 6th, 2013 the settlement officer mailed a letter to the petitionèr again acknowledging his receipt 15 of his request for a hearibg and setting forth certain 16 rights and obligatioñs of the petitioner. This letter 17 18 scheduled a telephone conference with the petitioner for July 10th, 2013 at 10 a.m. It also informed the 19 petitioner that to consider. an alternative to collection, 20 petitioner would have to provide certain information which 21 was listed in the letter. The petitioner did not .call at 22 23 24 25 the scheduled time for the telephone conference, and on July 10, 2013 the settlement officer mailed a letter to the petitioner stating that he had missed a scheduled telephone conference and allowed him an additional 14 days ribers ; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 to provide,the requested information. On or about July 12th, 2013, the settlement officer received a letter from the petitioner. In that letter, t-he petitioner did not present.any arguments against the proposed lien, except that he was not previously able to challenge the liability. He did not request a collection alternative. On August 12th, 2013, the settlement officer 9 mailed the pe.titioner a copy of the notice of deficiency 10 issued to him and the IRS transcript which included the 11 Form 1099 from Total Health and Rejuvenation Center Inc. 12 13 14 15 The settlement officer told petitioner that since he .had not claimed the notice of deficiency at the post office, he could not challenge the underlying liability. This statement by the settlement officer was incorrect, as the 16 postal information did not support th.e fact that 17 petitioner had not claimed the notice o.f deficiency. 18 Rather the subsequent analysis of the postal information 19 indicates that the notice of deficiency was sent to 20 petitioner's address as it was listed on the certified 21 mailing list. 22 Because of .the misimpression of the settlement 23 officer originally, the court remanded the case so that 24 the settlement officer coüld determine, in fact, whether 25 the notice of deficiency was sent to the petitioner. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . etitioner originälly filed hi.s petition in this case on October 17th, 2013' and, as previously stated, afte-r the case was submitted, fully stipulated, the court remanded c.the cases But before thé case was remanded, petitioner did execute a stipulation of facts in which he stipulated that he did work for.Total Health and Rejuvenation Center Inc. during 2007. He also stipulated that he did not file a Federal income tax return for 2007. After the case was remanded, a settlement 10 officer.contacted t e petitioner to begin discussions in 6- CD ri () the court with the court's remand. The petitioner did not answer the telephone, and a voicemail méssage was left. 11 12 13 Petitioner did not return the call. A letter was sent to . 14 petitioner on Fébruary 23rd, 2016 addressing pétitioner's 15 rights and.obligations and suggesting that if petitioner 16 wished to pursue a collection alternative, he needed to 17 18 19 submit -cer ain infórmation, including filing a Federal income tax return for 2007. On March 14th, 2016 the settlement officer 20 received a letter from the petitioner wherein the 21 petitioner indicated he wished to have his hearing'by 22 23 correspondence. He acknowledged that he. had received a copy of the notice of deficiency from the settlement 24 officer, but he had stated that he had never previously . 25 received it. The postal service indicated to pe-titioner that it could not locate the tracking number for the notice of deficiency because of the expiration of time. Petitioner maintained that the IRS.had never sent him the 9 notice of deficiency. The settlement officer corresponded with the petitioner and explained that the address on both the no~tice of deficiency and the United States Postal Service Form 2877 was his last known address, and is still h'is address today. The settlement officer had reviewed the certified mailing list which showed the petitioner's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 name, his address, and the certified mail article number 11 that corrésponded with the name, address, and certified 12 mail numbér printed on the notice of deficiency. The 13 settlement officer explained' that the certified mail list .14 bears the United States Postal Service date stamp, sign.ed 15 16 by David M. Dahl, the U.S. Postal Service employee, indidating that he mailed the notice of deficiency to the 17 petitioner at the address listed on the notice of 18 deficiénby. Mr. Dahl submitted a declaration in support 19 of respondent's motion for summary judgment. 20 The settlement officer had.reviehed the 21 certified mail list, a copy of the notice of deficiency, 22 and.Mr. Dahl's declaration to verify that the notice of 23. deficiency was mailed .to the peti.ti.oner in accordance with 24 . IRC section 6330(c) (1). Nevertheless, the settlement 25 officer gave the petitioner an opportunity to s.ubmit any information he wished to to contest the liability for 2007. This was because the settlement officer could not verify that, although the notice of deficiency was sent, she could not establish that petitioner actually received 10 it. On or about March 31st, 2016, the settlement officer received a fax letter from the petitioner responding to the. settlement officer's prior correspondence. Petitioner maintains he did not have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 income in 2007, even though that is contrary to the prior 11 stipulation he had entered into. 12 13 Ön July 21st, 2016 the settlement officer issued a supplemental notice of determination and upheld the 14 collection action. 15 Summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 121(b) is 16 appropriate when there is no genuine issue of any material 17 fact and' the decision may be rendered as a matter of law. 18 Sundstrand Corp. v. Commis.sioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992) 19 aff'd, 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). 20 21 In the present situation,. the cross-motions for summary judgment are focused solely on whether the notice 22 of deficiency sent to the petitioner was signed by a 23 24 living person. The petitioner maintains, based upon his internet research, that the signatory on the notice of 25 deficiency was deceased at the alleged date of the notice 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 of deficiehcy. And he attaches the information from the internet an a declaratión from a mortuary. Respondent counters with a declaration which supports the fact that the signatóry on the notice of deficiéncy, Henry Slaughter, was at the time the notice of deficiency was issued an employ,ee of the Ogden Service Center of the Internal Revenue Service. We do not find petitioner's argument to be persuasive and we accept respondent's assertion that the notice of deficiency was signed by a .10 proper Internal Revenue Service employee. 11 12 .A noti.ce of deficiency need 'not actually be signed to be valid. Peñddla v. Commissioner,. 50 T.C. 509, 13 513-14 (1968). However,- the Court takeh serious 14. challenges ·to notices if there is a showñ irregularity. 15 16 17 18 19 And even if the document is not signed, the Court will examine the authority of the issue of the notice if that is in qúestion. Muncy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017- 83. In the present case, petitioner's challenge is 20 meritless becausé respondent has established first that 21 ,the notide of deficiency was mailèd to the petitioner, and 22 therefore, the assessment was valid. And petitioner has 23 offered no .challenge to the underlying liability despite 24 numerous opportunities to do so, including an opportunity 25 in this court.