TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Daniel Jackson
Docket Number: 4762-10S
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/12/2011
Pages: 10

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 DEM DANIEL JACKSON, Petitioner, v. ) Docket No. 4762-10 S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of February 16, 2011, containing her oral opinion rendered in this case. the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa on transmit the to the pages of findings of fact and In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. May 12, 2011 SERVED May 17 2011 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 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa Daniel Jackson v. Commissioner Docket No. 4762-10S February 16, 2011 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. These oral findings of Fact and Opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This collection review proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for the years at issue as later defined, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted in section 7459(b) and Rule 152. This is a collection review case involving the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien to collect from petitioner his tax liabilities for 2006 and 2007 (collectively the years at issue). This collection review matter is before the Court.on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 30, 2010. 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 There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. Priscilla Parent appeared on behalf of respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following facts. Petitioner resided in California at the time he filed the petition. Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for each year at issue but did not pay the entire amount owing. After crediting petitioner with withheld tax payments,.petitioner had balances due of $2,523 for 2006 and $2,176 for 2007, based upon his self-assessed liabilities. Petitioner failed to pay the self-assessed liabilities. He has been credited, however, with the $600 economic stimulus payment for his liability for 2007. Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing under I.R.C. § 6320. The lien notice advised petitioner that a notice of Federal tax lien had been filed with respect to petitioner's unpaid taxes for the years at issue and informed petitioner that he could receive a hearing. Petitioner timely filed a request for a hearing with Appeals in response to the lien notice. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 | 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 Petitioner stated in his hearing request that he was retired and disabled and hasn't worked for the last ten years. Petitioner checked the boxes on the hearing request that he wanted to discuss collection alternatives such as an installment agreement or an offer in compromise. He also indicated he wanted the lien released or withdrawn but he failed to provide any information or documentation to support his request. As set forth in the Determination Notice, neither petitioner or his representative attended the scheduled hearing. He also failed to provide any of the information that Appeals requested including financial information. Without any additional information from petitioner despite multiple requests, respondent issued the Determination Notice upholding respondent's proposed collection action with respect to petitioner's income tax liabilities for the years at issue. Respondent determined.that petitioner had failed to supply documentation to show that he was entitled to any collection alternatives or the degree to which respondent's collection efforts through the lien were intrusive. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court. The petition is the first time petitioner 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 6 seeks to contest the underlying liabilities for the self-assessed amounts. He again asserts that the lien should be withdrawn but he provides no documentation or justification for the lien to be withdrawn. As mentioned previously, Respondent filed a summary judgment motion. The Court ordered Petitioner to file on or before January 5, 2011 a response or objection to respondent's summary judgment motion. Petitioner failed to file a response or objection. The Court also scheduled the motion for a hearing in Los Angeles, California on February 14, 2011. Petitioner failed to attend the motion hearing or calendar call. OPINION We are asked to decide whether to grant summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See, e.g., FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable materials show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b); Elect Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002). The moving party has the burden of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. - 157, 162 (2002). The party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts that show that a genuine question of material fact exists and may not rely on allegations or denials in the pleadings. Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 214, 216-217 (1986). Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000). We must decide'whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that respondent did not abuse his discretion in sustaining the lien filing to collect petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 2006 and 2007. Petitioner cannot merely deny his liability and ask for the lien to be withdrawn. Respondent is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. We briefly provide an overview of collection 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 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 8 proceedings. If any person liable for Federal tax liability neglects or refuses to make payment, a lien in favor of the United States is imposed on all property and rights to property of that taxpayer. See sec. 6321. The lien arises when the assessment is made and continues until the tax liability is satisfied or the statute of limitations bars enforcement of the lien. Sec. 6322; If the taxpayer fails to pay, the Commissioner files a lien with the appropriate State office to validate the lien against any purchaser, holder of a security interest or judgment lien creditor. Sec. 6323(a); Lindsay v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2001-285. The Commissioner is required to furnish the taxpayer with written notice that a lien was filed. Sec. 6320. The person may then request administrative review of the matter in the form of an Appeals office hearing similar to collection by levy. " Sec. 6320(c). If the taxpayer requests a hearing, he or she may raise at that hearing any relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax or the proposed levy. Sec. 6330(c) (2). Relevant issues include any appropriate spousal defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection, and possible alternative means of collection such as an installment agreement or an 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 9 offer-in-compromise. Sec. 6330(c) (2) (A). After the hearing, the Appeals officer is required to make a determination that addresses issues the taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements of applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, and balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary. Sec. 6330(c) (3). The record reflects that the settlement officer properly verified that all the legal and procedural requirements have been met. The settlement officer confirmed, using a transcript of petitioner's accounts, that assessments were properly made for each year at issue, that appropriate and timely notices were sent regarding the assessments, and that petitioner was properly informed of his rights with respect to the lien filing. The record also reflects that the settlement officer properly balanced the need for efficient collection of taxes with petitioner's legitimate concern that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary. The record also establishes that the settlement officer addressed the only issue petitioner raised -- that the lien be withdrawn. She considered the statutory requirements for lien 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 10 withdrawal under section 6323(j) and determined that none of the conditions applied to release the lien. She concluded that the lien filing was not premature and petitioner had not entered into an agreement to pay the tax liability. Instead, she determined that the lien was filed in full compliance with the law. Petitioner has not raised any valid challenges to the appropriateness of collection, did not assert any spousal defenses, or otherwise offer any collection alternatives. See sec. 6330(c) (2). Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b) (4). Petitioner has not presented any evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that respondent abused his discretion. Indeed, respondent is acting well within his discretion, particularly in light of petitioner's failure to provide requested information and to appear for his collection due process hearing. Petitioner has failed to respond to the Court's orders and failed to comply with the Court's procedures. We therefore conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding respondent's collection action. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent and an appropriate order will Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 11 be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 10, 2010, upon which this case is based, regarding the unpaid liabilities for 2006 and 2007. The order will also grant respondent's motion for summary judgment. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888