TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Marian L. Moline
Docket Number: 171-07L
Judge: Jacobs
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 05/20/2009
Pages: 10

T .C . Memo . 2009-11 0 UNITED I STATESI TAX COURT MARIAN L . MOLINE,I Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No . 171-07L . Filed May 20, 2009 . Marian L . Moline, pro se . Steven M . Webster , for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINIO N JACOBS, Judge : This b ase arises from a petition fo r judicial review pursuant to section 6330(d) of respondent' s determination to proceed with collection of petitioner's unpai d -Federal income taxes for 2001 by levy . The sole issue involved I is whether respondent's determination constitutes an abuse of , ti SERVE MAY 20 20 discretion . All section references are to the Internal Revenue 2 - Code in effect for 2001 . Background At the time she filed her petition , petitioner resided in Kansas . Petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns for 2000 ' and 2001 . As a consequence , respondent prepared substitutes for returns pursuant to authority granted under section 6020(b) . On June 4, 2004 , separate notices of deficiency for the 2000 and -2001!4 tax years were mailed to petitioner . Petitioner sent copies of the notices of deficiency for 2000. and 2001 to the Court, each containing a handwritten notation stating : "I hereby refute and invalidate this unsigned presentment, without dishonor . I do not owe this money! All rights reserved, Without Prejudice, UCC 1- 207 ." The Court received the documents on September 1, 2004, and the matter was assigned docket No . 16198-04 . . On September 7, 2004, the Court ordered petitioner to file a proper amended petition and pay the filing fee on or before October 22 , 2004 . On January 4, 2005, the Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction when no response was received . On November 7, 2005 , respondent sent petitioner written ilf notice that respondent intended to levy on petitioner ' s assets to k p collect her unpaid tax liability for 2000 . Petitioner did no t .respond to that notice . - 3 On April 5, 2006, . respondent sent petitioner written notic e that respondent intended to levy on petitioner's assets to collect her unpaid tax liability for 2001 . In response , petitioner timely filed For m 12153 ; Request for a Collection Process Hearing (section 6330 hearing) . On this form petitioner s I wrote : -This process is not legal according to the highest law o f the lance! I -You have no legal authority to levy/ seizure . Attached to petitioner's r e quest fIor a hearing were two printed I form documents, one indicat ing that petitioner was not a resident ] 1 of the United States, but rather was a resident of on e republic sovereign States, and the other demanding information of respondent' representative who issued .the notic e of intent to levy, as wel l a s copies of his driver's license , Social Security card, and RS identification card . The case was assigned to Settlement Officer Bart Hil l respondent's Appeals Office . On October 12, 2006, Settlement ! Officer Hill sent petitione r I a letter scheduling a telephon e section 6330 hearing with petitioner on November 15, 2006, at i l; p .m . central standard time The-letter informed petitioner tha t 4 the issues she raised "are those that Courts have determined ar e frivolous .or Appeals does not consider ." Respondent advised p etitioner she was not entitled to a face-to-face hearing as r the positions set forth in her request for a section 6330 hearing 4 - -J ,because they were frivolous . However, she was advised that she would be allowed a face-to-face conference with respect to any nonfrivolous issue . Petitioner was informed that she had to set forth°the nonfrivolous issue in writing or call Settlement Officer Hill within 14 days from the date of the letter to qualify for a face-to-face conference . Petitioner was also informed that if she wished-to discuss collection alternatives to the intended levy, such as an installment agreement or an offer- in-compromise , she had to ( 1) submit certain documents to If ji Ip Settlement Officer Hill , such as Form 433 - A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self-Employed Individuals, (2) file as yet unfiled Federal income tax returns for 2003, 2004 , and 2005, " and (3) submit proof that all required estimated tax payments had been fully paid . Finally, petitioner was informed that she was not entitled to a section 6330 hearing regarding the intended levy with respect to tax year 2000 but that she could have a hearing equivalent to a section 6330 hearing with respect to that matter . Petitioner faxed a 12-page response to Settlement Officer Hill .-, .,,Petitioner raised numerous frivolous arguments includin g (1) that she was a resident of a State and not of the United States'and (2) that the Supreme Court in Pollock v . Farmers' Loa n & ;Trust Co . , 158 U .S . 601 ( 1895 ), held that the income tax was - 5 unconstitutional . At trial' petitioner. disavowed all of th e arguments set forth in her fax . During the November 15~(cid:127) 2006,1 telephone hearing, petitioner ' continued to assert frivolous arguments . She did not-propose an y collection alternatives (i .e ., an offer-in-compromise or an installment agreement) . On November 30, 2006, respondent's . Appeals Office issued a Notice of Determination Concernin g Collection Action(s) Under Section16320 and/or 6330 . In th e notice of determination , respondent sustained the proposed .levy i"I and rejected petitioner ' s arguments . An attachment to the notic e h I of determination (written by Settlement Officer Hill) noted tha t petitioner did not offer any collection alternatives, tha t Settlement Officer Hill reviewed the administrative fil e transcripts and verified that the : requirements of all applicable law and administrative procedures were met, and that the proposed levy action-with . respect to the collection of petitioner's unpaid Federal income tax for 2001 appropriately balanced the need for' efficient collection of the taxes!withthe legitimate concerns of the taxpayer that the collection action be no more intrusive tha n i , I necessary . On January 3, 2007, p etitionIer filed a petition in thi s Court to review respondent 's intended collection action . ' 'Petitioner also requested the Court to review respondent's determination to proceed with collection of petitioner's unpai d (continued. . .) - 6 - Discussion A . Standard of Revie w ;,;This case involves a review of respondent's determination to proceed with collection of petitioner's . unpaid Federal income tax, penalties, and interest for 2001 by way of levy . Section ,6330 . hearings concerning levies are conducted in accordance with section 6330(c) . After the Commissioner issues his notice of determination following an administrative hearing, a taxpayer has the right to petition this Court for judicial review of th e Commissioner's determination . Sec . 6330(d)(1) . Our review of the Commissioner's determination is subject to the provisions of section 6330 . A taxpayer is precluded from contesting the existence or amount .,of the underlying tax liability~if he/she received a . notice of deficiency for the tax year in question or otherwise had an opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liability . Sec . i, 6330(c) (2) (B) . In such a case, we review the Commissioner' s determination for abuse of discretion . See Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) ; Gaza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176 (2000) . An abuse of discretion is defined as any action that i s '( . . .continued) Federal income taxes for 2000 as set forth in respondent's decision letter . The Court's copy of respondent's decision 1etter,~s undated . By Order dated Apr . 27, 2007, the Court dismissed tax year 2000 from consideration of this case and struck all references to that year from the petition . unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, clearly unlawful, o r lacking sound basis in factor law : Thor Power Tool Co . v . Commissioner , 439 U .S ; 522, 532-533 (1979) ; Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19 ; 3 (1999) . Petitioner was issue d a notice of deficiency for 2001,-whic h she received . She did not file a proper petition in this Court and did not pay the required filing fee : Petitioner was given Ian opportunity to file a prope, amendied petition and pay the required filing" fee, but she failed to do so and her suit a docket No . 16198-04 was dismissed .' Petitioner is therefore not entitled .to .raise her underlying tax liability for 2001, and w e review respondent's proposed .collction action for abuse o f discretion . B . Petitioner's Request for a Face-to-Face Section 6330 Hearing I Petitioner's main argument is that her section .6330 hearin g was invalid and unlawful because it was held,by way of a teleconference and . not a face=to-face conference . I I Although a section 63,30 hearing may consist of a face- face conference, a proper hearing may also occur by telephon e by correspondence under certain circumstances . See Katz v :' Commissioner , 115 T .C . 329 337-338 (2000) ; sec . 301 .6330- 1(d)(2), Q&A 7 D6, Proced . 4Admin .1 Regs . Section 6330 hearing s have historically been inf ormal . Davis v . Commissioner , 115°T : C 35, 41 (2000) . We have held that it is not an abuse of discretion if an Appeals officer denies a taxpayer's request for a face- .to-face section 6330 hearing after . determining that the hearing would not be productive because of the taxpayer's frivolous or groundless arguments . See Summers v . Commissioner , T .C .i:iMemo . 2006-219 ; Ho v . Commissioner , . T .C . Memo . 2006 ..-41 . Moreover, we have held it is, not an abuse of discretion t o proceed with collection where the taxpayer has not filed ;,all required tax returns for prior years . See Summers v . Commissioner , supra ; Collier v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo .1 2004- 171 . The record demonstrates that .a face-to-.face conference woul d not have been productive . Petitioner's meeting request contained only arguments challenging the legality of the tax law itself, arguments that we have long considered frivolous . 'Respondent granted petitioner a telephone conference and informed her that she could still qualify for a face-to-face conference if she would first identify any relevant nonfrivolous matter she intended to discuss . Despite being given this second opportunity, petitioner presented no .such matter . Instead, petitioner replied with arguments regarding how she was no t subject to Federal income tax and that the'income tax was . unconstitutional . Furthermore, petitioner did not file her unfiled .income tax returns for 2003-05 . Under these circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for Settlement 9 Officer Hill to conclude that a face-to-face meeting would no t have been productive ; Thus Settlement Officer Hill was not required to offer petitioner a face - to-face conference . See Clark v . Commissioner , T .C .'Memo . 2008 - 155 ; Summers v . Commissioner , supra ; see also Lunsford v . Commissioner , 117 T. .C . .183 (2001) . i On December 27, 2006, nearly it month after respondent issue d the notice of determination, petitioner wrote Settlement Officer' I Hill stating : "If any of my correspondence-contains frivolousii , arguments, I now withdraw tlhem ." Petitioner submitted a new For m 12153 to respondent and requested'a face-to-face'section 633 0 hearing .- Petitioner maintlins that on the basis of he r submission of this second Form 12153, respondent's notice of determination is no longer material and/or relevant . Consequently, petitioner posits that (1) the notice o f determination, dated November 30, 2006, should be considere d nullified, (2) she be giveln an opportunity fora face-to-face', section 6330 hearing, and (3) a new notice of determination I should be issued . Petitioner cannot undo thatfwhich has occurred . He r I position change, assuming there truly is a position change, i s I too late to alter the disposition of this case . When making'(hi s determination, respondent could only review'the existing fact s and those arguments advanced . On the basis of petitioner's I 10 - ,submissions,during the hearing provided by section 6330, we hold 'that respondent did not abuse his discretion in .(1) refusing to ij~ offer petitioner a face-to-face hearing, and (2) sustaining the proposed levy collection . C . Other Matters Petitioner Raise d Petitioner argues that the tax liability respondent, determined for 2001 is grossly overstated, and she .requests that we redetermine the amount she owes . We cannot accede to petitioner's request . See sec . 6330(c)(2)(B) ; see also Sego v . Commissioner ,"114 T .C . at 610 . Petitioner received,a notice of deficiency for 2001, and she had an opportunity to contest respondent's determination before this Court . Petitioner failed to properly do so . We have considered all of petitioner's arguments and to the extent not discussed herein, we find them to be groundless and/or without merit . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entere d for respondent .