TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Saied Simozar
Docket Number: 19300-11L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/28/2012
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 SAIED SIMOZAR, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Docket No. 19300-11L Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in Los Angeles, California on October 15, 2012, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be issued granting respondent's Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds of Mootness. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, DC November 28, 2012 SERVED NOV 2 9 2012 Capital Reporting Company Saied Simozar 10-17-2012 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa October 17, 2012 2 Saied Simozar v. Commissioner Docket No. 19300-11L 3 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 4 oral findings of Fact and Opinion in this case and the 5 6 7 8 9 following represents the Court's oral findings of Fact and Opinion. These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 10 authority granted in section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All 11 12 13 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for 2007 and 2008, the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court 14 Rules of Practice and Procedure. 15 This collection review case involves 16 collection by a proposed levy of petitioner's tax 17 liabilities for the years at issue and is before the 18 Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss On Grounds of 19 Mootness, filed July 27, 2012, as there are no unpaid 20 tax amounts for any of the years at issue. The Court 21 scheduled respondent's motion for a hearing in Los 22 Angeles, California on October 15, 2012. 23 Petitioner appeared pro se, and Nicole Lloyd 24 appeared on behalf of respondent. 25 FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCornpany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Saied Simozar 10-17-2012 The parties agree or do not dispute the following 4 facts. Petitioner resided in California at the time he filed the collection review petition in this case. Petitioner failed to file income tax returns for the years at issue on a timely basis. Respondent therefore assessed the outstanding tax liabilities, including late-filing additions, late-payment additions and failure to pay estimated tax. Petitioner failed to pay the assessed amounts. Respondent therefore issued to petitioner a Final Notice-Notice of Intent to Levy and Your Right to a Hearing, for the outstanding income tax liabilities. The notice advised petitioner that respondent intended to collect by levy the unpaid tax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 liabilities for the years at issue. 16 17 18 19 20 Petitioner requested a hearing. Instead of raising any relevant issues, petitioner paid the unpaid amounts plus interest for each of the years at issue. Respondent issued a Notice of Determination lo320 concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 62..30 21 and/or 6330 on July 18, 2011, determining that the 22 proposed collection action was no longer warranted as 23 petitioner had paid all amounts plus interest for the 24 tax years at issue. 25 Petitioner filed a collection review petition (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Saied Simozar 10-17-2012 5 1 with this Court despite respondent's determination that 2 3 4 5 he would no longer need nor intend to levy to collect such liabilities. In the petition, petitioner raised issues regarding years not before the Court. As mentioned previously, respondent filed a 6 Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Mootness on July 27, 7 2012. The Court directed petitioner to respond or 8 object to respondent's motion. Petitioner responded by 9 again raising issues for years not before the Court. 10 We briefly discuss our jurisdiction before 11 deciding whether to grant respondent's motion. This 12 Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may 13 exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by 14 Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 15 (1985). We have jurisdiction to redetermine a 16 taxpayer's Federal tax liabilities in a deficiency 17 proceeding where the Commissioner has issued a valid 18 deficiency notice and the taxpayer has timely filed a 19 petition. Secs. 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a), (c); 20 Our jurisdiction in collection review cases is 21 predicated upon section 6330 (d) (1) (A), which gives the 22 Tax Court jurisdiction "with respect to such matter" as 23 is covered by the final determination in a requested 24 hearing before the Appeals Office. See Davis v. 25 Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000). (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Saied Simozar 10-17-2012 1 This Court has recognized limits to its 2 ability to provide relief in collection review matters 3 4 under section 6330. For instance, this Court has held that it lacks jurisdiction in a collection review 6 5 matter proceeding to determine an ·overpayment or to 6 order a refund or credit of the taxes paid. Greene- 7 Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006). 8 The parties here agree that there is no 9 unpaid liability for any of the years at issue. As 10 there is no remaining case or controversy to sustain 11 12 this Court's jurisdiction, this action is no longer justiciable and we shall grant respondent's motion to 13 dismiss on grounds of mootness. See Greene-Thapedi v. 14 Commissoner, supra. 15 To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate 16 order will be issued dismissing this collection review 17 matter on grounds of mootness. 18 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 19 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 9:41 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012