TAX COURT OPINION

Case: George R. Thomas
Docket Number: 24492-06L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/07/2008
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT Washington , D. C. 2021 7 GEORGE R . THOMAS, Petitioner v . ) Docket No . 24492-06L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . ADM . RECORDED SERVICE CAL . STAT . E JuDm O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 of the above case before Judge Thomas B . Wells at Jackson, Mississippi, on April 23, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Thomas B. Wells Judge Dated : Washington, D . C . May 7, 2008 SERVED MAY - 8 2008 2 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Thomas B . Wells 2 Docket No . 24492-0 6 3 Thomas v . Commissioner April 23, 200 8 4 THE COURT : THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER 5 ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE, AND 6 THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 7 FACT AND OPINION . THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND 8 OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY 9 OTHER CASE . 10 This is the case of George R . Thomas v . 11 Commissioner, Docket Number 24492-06 ; as amended, the 12 docket number will read 24492-06L, based upon the fact 13 that this is a lien and levy case . 14 The Petitioner resides in Hattiesburg , 15 Mississippi . The Petitioner filed a joint individual 16 tax return with his wife for the 2003 tax period . 17 Petitioner reported the amount of zero in almost every 18 line ; however, Petitioner attached a Form W- 2 19 reporting $34,944 in wages and two Forms 109 9 20 reporting $15,488 .72 and $25,571 .90 in nonemployee 21 compensation . Petitioner also attached two pages of 22 frivolous arguments, stating he is not subject to the 23 individual income tax . Petitioner continued with such 24 frivolous arguments at trial . 25 The Examination Division proposed an amount Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 3 1 of $15,692 .73 of individual income tax and sent a 2 notice of deficiency to Petitioner . Petitioner failed 3 to file a petition in the US Tax Court, and th e 4 proposed amounts were assessed against Petitioner . 5 For the 2003 year a notice of federal ta x 6 lien was filed against Petitioner . Petitioner filed a 7 request for a collection due process hearing . 8 Petitioner was mailed a conference letter calling for 9 a hearing by Respondent . In the letter Petitioner was 10 given the option to have a face-to-face conference , 11 correspondence conference, or a hearing conducted via 12 telephone . 13 Petitioner was referred to a websit e 14 entitled The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments and 15 was given IRS Publication 3598, entitled The Audit 16 Reconsideration Process . 17 Petitioner was asked to file any outstanding 18 US individual income tax returns by October 6, 2006 . 19 Respondent requested Petitioner provide a correc t 20 signed 2003 individual return by October 6, 2006 . 21 Sections 6320 and 6330(d) of the Interna l 22 Revenue Code provide for judicial review of an appeals 23 officer's notice of determination . Section 6330 does 24 not prescribe the standard review the Court must apply 25 in reviewing the administrative determination ; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 however, in Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 610- 2 611 (2000), the Court provided that the determination 3 of the appeals officer will be reviewed for abuse of 4 discretion . 5 Because Petitioner did not appeal th e 6 underlying tax liability to the US Tax Court, the 7 underlying tax liability is not in issue, and a review 8 of the determination is limited to whether the appeals 9 officer abused his discretion at the hearing and i n 10 his determination . 11 In making the determination the statute 12 requires the appeals officer to take int o 13 consideration, one, verification that the requirements 14 of any applicable law or administrative procedure have 15 been met ; two, issues raised by the taxpayer ; and , 16 three, whether any proposed collection action balances 17 the need for the efficient collection of taxes with 18 the legitimate concern of the taxpayer ; that any 19 collection be no more intrusive than necessary . 20 Internal Revenue Code Section 6330(c)(3) . 21 During the appeals hearing Petitione r 22 continued to raise frivolous arguments to support his 23 position that he was not subject to the federal income 24 tax . The settlement officer determined tha t 25 Petitioner's arguments lacked any merit . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 Petitioner continued with his frivolous 2 arguments at trial . The Court is not required t o 3 address Petitioner's frivolous arguments . See Crain 4 v . Commissioner , 737 F .2d 1417 (5th Circuit, 1984) . 5 Petitioner has failed to offer any 6 collection alternatives . The record in this cas e 7 shows the appeals officer was engaged in the required 8 analysis prior to issuing the determination . Sh e 9 reviewed the administrative file and concluded all 10 requirements of applicable law and administrative 11 procedure have been met with respect to th e 12 assessments and proposed collection action . 13 We hold, therefore, that Respondent' s 14 appeals officer did not abuse her discretion in the 15 instant case . Therefore, Respondent's collection 16 action will be sustained, and a decision will be 17 entered accordingly . 18 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 19 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 20 (Whereupon, at 11 :14 a .m ., the bench opinion 21 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 22 23 24 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888