TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Alejandro Manuel Rielo
Docket Number: 1789-10S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/17/2010
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ALEJANDRO MANUAL RIELO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 1789-10S. 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 the transcript the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at findings Petitioner and to respondent a copy of of Miami, Florida, on November 3, 2010, containing his oral of the pages of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 17, 2010 SERVEB NOV 2 3 2010 1. Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Alejandro Manuel Rielo v. Commissioner Docket No. 1789-10S November 3, 2010 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. This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. Pursuant to Section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other Court, and as stated previously, this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under Section 6320(c) and 6330(d) of the Internal Revenue Code in effect through the period in question in this case. After this, Internal Revenue Code section references will be for the period in question in this case, and rule references will be to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This case is before the Court pursuant to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 4 Respondent's motion for summary judgment under Rule 121(A) . Petitioner filed an income tax return for the taxable year 2007, but failed to pay all of the liability reported on the return. Respondent assessed the taxes shown on the income tax return. In April 2009, Respondent issued to Petitioner a notice of federal tax lien filing, and your right to a hearing under IRC Section 6320. This notice advised Petitioner that a notice of federal tax lien had been filed with respect to his unpaid liability for 2007 and offered Petitioner the right to a hearing, with a settlement officer of the Internal Revenue Service. In May 2009, Petitioner submitted Form 12153, Request for Collection Due Process Hearing. On this form, Petitioner requested an installment agreement with the Internal Revenue Service, and stated, I cannot pay the total amount in one single payment . When Petitioner submitted the form 12153, he was not in compliance with his estimated tax payments for 2009. Petitioner was then offered a settlement conf erence by Respondent ' s set t lement of f i cer , and was advised that he needed to become current on his estimated tax payments for 2009. In October 2009, the settlement officer advised the Petitioner that he had not submitted a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 5 response to the letter offering a due process hearing and advising him concerning his estimated tax payments. The letter, sent to Petitioner in October 2009, also advised him that if no response was received by October 20th, 2009, a determination letter would be issued. .Petitioner did not.respond to the letter by October 20th, 2009, nor did Petitioner provide the settlement officer with any information to support his request for an installment.agreement. On December 21st, 2009, the Respondent sent Petitioner a notice of determination concerning collection action under IRC Section 6320, with respect to Petitioner's income tax liability for the 2007 year. On January 21st, 2009, the Petitioner filed with this court a timely petition relative to the underlying matter. In his petition, Petitioner alleged that a tax lien would create a financial hardship on him and his business, and that he intended to pay the taxes which he owed. Petitioner did not place the underlying tax liability at issue in his petition. The tax liability is not an issue such as this. The Court reviews the determination of Respondent's settlement officer based upon an abuse- of-discretion standard. Goza v. Commissioner 114 T.C. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 176 (2000). Petitioner did not respond to Respondent's motion for summary judgment, as ordered by the Court, nor did the Petitioner appear at the calendar call of this case on Monday, November 1st, 2010. The underlying facts of this matter are not disputed, and the Court finds that application of Rule 121 is appropriate. The Court also finds that Respondent's settlement officer did not abuse discretion in rejecting Petitioner's request for an installment agreement because the Petitioner was not in compliance with estimated tax payments for 2009. It is not an abuse of discretion to follow established IRS policy in requiring that Petitioner be in compliance with current filing and estimated tax payments to be eligible for collection alternatives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . See Otto's E-Z Clean Enterprises v. Commissioner, T.C. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Memo 2008-54. We also find that the settlement officer did not abuse discretion in issuing the notice of determination after the Petitioner failed to participate in the due process hearing process. Pursuant to Sections 6320(c) and 6330(c) (3), the determination of a settlement officer must take into consideration the verification that the requirements Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 of applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, the issues raised by the taxpayer, and whether any proposed collection action balances the need for effective collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the taxpayer that any collection be no more intrusive than is necessary. As stated in the attachment to the notice of determination, the settlement officer considered all of these matters. We find that the settlement officer fully complied with the requirements of Section 6330(c) (3), and that there was no abuse of discretion in this case. Accordingly, a decision will be entered for Respondent in this case. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. (Whereupon, at 9:37 a.m., the bench opinion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ' in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888