TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Janet L. Dutter
Docket Number: 12093-12SL
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/31/2013
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 JANET L. DUTTER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Docket No. 12093-12SL 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 this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in Las Vegas, Nevada on September 17, 2013, 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£or Summary Judgment. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, DC October 31, 2013 ,. SERVED OCT 3 1 20S Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa September 17, 2013 Janet L. Dutter v. Commissioner Docket No. 12093-12SL 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 proceeding was conducted as a Small Tax Case under section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 15 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 16 17 18 19 20 Code in effect for 2010, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This is a collection review case involving a proposed levy to collect from petitioner her unpaid tax liabilities for 2010. This collection review 21 matter is before the Court on respondent's motion for 22 23 24 25 summary judgment, filed May 13, 2013. Petitioner did not file a response to respondent's motion, despite having been ordered to do so by the Court, nor did petitioner appear for 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 calendar call or appear at the hearing scheduled on respondent's motion in Las Vegas, Nevada. Ric 3 Hulshoff appeared on behalf of respondent. 4 5 6 7 8 9 FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes the following facts: Petitioner resided in Las Vegas, Nevada at the time she filed the collection review petition. Petitioner timely filed an income tax return for 2010, reporting total tax due of $46,550. 10 Petitioner has insufficient income tax withholdings 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 during 2010 to fully pay her tax liability. Respondent thereafter assessed the amount shown on the return, and issued a proposed levy to collect the unpaid amount. The levy notice advised petitioner that the proposed levy was to collect unpaid tax liability for 2010 from petitioner, and informed petitioner that she could receive a collection hearing. Petitioner timely requested a hearing. Petitioner asserted in her hearing request that she be able to make an offer and compromise. The settlement officer assigned to her case scheduled a collection hearing and informed petitioner's representative that petitioner needed to provide current financial information before the settlement 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 officer could consider any collection alternatives. The settlement officer also advised that petitioner needed to provide a completed Form 656, Offer in Compromise. The settlement officer gave petitioner 6 until March 2, 2012 to provide all written documents. 7 Petitioner provided no information by that date, nor 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 had respondent received any information from petitioner by March 27, 2012, at which time respondent learned that petitioner was in a hardship situation. Again, the settlement officer advised that petitioner needed to complete the Form 433(a) containing her then-current financial information 15 with supporting documents before the settlement 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 officer could consider whether petitioner was in a currently not collectible status. The settlement officer further explained to petitioner that the settlement officer would make her determination based on the case file if petitioner did not send in the requested information by the new date specified. Petitioner and her representative were both non-responsive. Without any information or response from petitioner, the settlement officer issued a 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 determination notice, upholding respondent's collection action regarding petitioner's unpaid income tax liabilities for 2010. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court. Petitioner asserted in the petition she provided her representative with documentation that her expenses exceed her Social Security income, which is her only income. There is nothing in the record to reflect that any financial information was provided, nor were the appropriate and required forms completed, attaching supporting documentation and provided to the settlement officer. As mentioned previously, respondent filed a summary judgment motion and the Court scheduled a hearing on respondent's motion at the Las Vegas, Nevada trial session. Petitioner did not appear at the hearing and failed to file an objection or response to respondent's motion. 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 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, 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). 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, 181-82 (2000). We therefore must decide whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or 14 without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 determining that the collection action should proceed with respect to petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 2010. Respondent is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. We briefly explain how we reached our decision. First, the record reflects that petitioner never presented any financial information for the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 settlement officer to evaluate any collection alternatives. We have frequently and consistently held that an officer does not abuse any discretion by refusing to consider collection alternatives, if the taxpayer fails to submit the required and requested financial information. Sapp v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-104. In addition, a settlement officer is not obligated to negotiate indefinitely or wait any 10 specific time before 1ssulng a determination. See 11 Kreit Mech. Assocs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 123, 134 (2011); Kuretski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-262; Clawson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004- 106. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent, and an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the determination set forth in the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection 19 Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated April 20 21 22 23 24 25 18, 2012, upon which this case is based, regarding petitioner's unpaid income tax liabilities for 2010. 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. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Capital Reporting Company (Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 9 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com