TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Stephen West Sommerville
Docket Number: 11965-11L
Judge: Vasquez
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/05/2012
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 RMM STEPHEN WEST SOMMERVILLE, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent 11965-11 L. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R 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 trial in the above case before Judge Juan F. Vasquez at El Paso, Texas, on October 16, 2012, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Juan F. Vasquez Judge Dated. Washington, D.C. December 5, 2012 SERVED Dec 06 2012 Capital Reporting Company Stephen West Sommerville 10-16-2012 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Juan F. Vasquez 10/16/2012 2 Stephen West Sommerville v Commissioner No. 11965-11L 3 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 4 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. The 5 6 following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and opinion 7 shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other O case. 8 9 This is the case of Stephen West Sommerville, 10 petitioner, versus Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 11 Service, respondent; docket number 11965-11L. 12 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 13 authority granted by virtue of section 7459 (b) and Rule 14 152. All section references are to the Internal 15 Revenue Code. And all Rule references are to the Tax 16 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 17 18 Pursuant to section 6330 (d), petitioner seeks review of respondent's determination to proceed with 19 collection of his unpaid 2006 Federal income tax 20 liability. The issue for decision is whether 21 petitioner's 2006 income tax liability should have been 22 credited with a payment that petitioner alleges to have 23 24 remitted to the Internal Revenue Service. At the time the petition was filed, 25 petitioner lived in El Paso, Texas. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Stephen West Sommerville 10-16-2012 Petitioner did not file his Federal income 4 tax return for 2006. Consequently, the IRS prepared a 1 2 3 substitute for return and mailed petitioner a notice of 4 deficiency. Petitioner did not file a petition with 5 6 7 8 9 the Court contesting the deficiency determination, and the IRS assessed the tax liabilities for yearÓ On December 14, 2010, the IRS sent petitioner Letter 3172, Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320. Petitioner timely 10 requested a collection due process hearing, which 11 pursuant to petitioner's request, was conducted via 12 13 correspondence. During the hearing, the only issue raised by 14 petitioner was that his 2006 income tax liability 15 should have been credited with a payment that he 16 previously remitted to the IRS. As proof of payment, 17 petitioner provided the IRS settlement office with a 18 document titled "Money Order". This document did not 19 have the name of a financial institution or any other 20 21 third party upon whom the IRS could make a demand for payment, and the account number listed was petitioner's 22 Social Security number. The IRS settlement office 23 determined that this document did not establish proof 24 25 of payment. Petitioner did not provide any other version of payment (e.g., copy of a bank statement (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 O O Capital Reporting Company Stephen West Sommerville 10-16-2012 5 1 2 3 4 showing the withdrawal of the funds or a copy of the receipt of purchase for the money order). During a CDP hearing the taxpayer may raise relevant issues such as spousal defenses, the 5 appropriateness of the proposed collection action, and 6 possible collection alternatives. Section 6330 7 8 (c) (2) (A) . The Appeals officer must verify that the requirements of applicable law and administrative 9 procedure have been met, consider issues properly 10 11 raised by the taxpayer, and consider whether the proposed collection action balances the need for the 12 efficient collection of taxes with the taxpayer's 13 legitimate concern that any collection action be no 14 more intrusive than necessary. Section 6330 (b), 15 16 17 (c) (3). When a taxpayer's underlying tax liability is properly at issue, the Court reviews the underlying tax liability de novo and all other administrative 18 determinations for abuse of discretion. Christopher 19 Cross, Inc. v. United States, 461 F.3d 610, 612 (5th 20 Cir.2006) . 21 22 23 24 The only issue that petitioner raised during the CDP hearing was that he had paid his entire 2006 tax liability. However, petitioner failed to offer any credible evidence that he paid his tax liability. 25 Petitioner did not raise any other issues regarding (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Stephen West Sommerville 10-16-2012 6 1 either the underlying liability or the proposed 2 collection action during the CDP hearing. 3 4 5 Furthermore, petitioner has not advanced any argument or introduced any evidence that would allow us to conclude that the determination to sustain the 6 Notice of Federal Tax Lien was arbitrary, capricious, 7 or without sound basis in fact or law. Accordingly, we 8 hold that the Appeals did not abuse its discretion in 9 sustaining the notice of Federal Tax Lien. 10 11 12 13 14 The foregoing represents the Court's oral findings of facts and opinion in this case. In reaching our holdings herein, we have considered all arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned above, we conclude they are moot, irrelevant, or without 15 merit. This concludes this case. (Whereupon, at 2:14 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) O 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012