TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Robert E. Clayton
Docket Number: 7531-06L
Judge: Jacobs
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 05/26/2009
Pages: 20

T .C . Memo . 2009-1 1 4 UNITED STATES TAX COUR T ROBERT E . CLAYTON, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 7531-06L . iled May 26, 2009 . Robert E . Clayton, pro se . Jeremy L . McPherson , for responden MEMORANDUM OPINION JACOBS, Judge : The dispute between the parties concerns respondent's determination sustaining the filing of a ,lien to collect petitioner's unpaid Federal in ome taxes for 2000 and 2002 . The issue involved is whether, following a collection due process hearing pursuant to section 63 0(b), that determination constituted an abuse of discretion . . SERVE b MAY 26 20'09 - 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all, section references are t o the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Background Trial of this case was held on December 10, 2008, in San Francisco . The record is muddled, largely because of petitiloner's .refusal to stipulate, his refusal to testify, an d his flawed interpretation of the law . Nonetheless, on the basis of documents received into the record, .. as well as petitioner' s gyp- ' ~ i remark's" to the court, we are able tollfind the following facts, which we deem sufficient to enable us to render an informed pinion . At the time he filed his petition petitioner resided in Califorrnia . On or about April 15, 2001, petitioner submitted to respondent Form 1040EZ, Income Tax Return for Single and Joint Filers With No Dependents, for 2000 . On this return petitione r listed his occupation as "Analyzer" . He wrote "Exempt" on line 1 (total'I wages, salaries, and tips), line 7 (income tax withheld), and line 12 (amount you owe) . On or about A ril 15 2003 ,, pe p ti i t oner su m b itt d t e o respondent Form 1040A , U .S . Individual Income Tax Return, for 2002 . On this return petitioner listed his occupation as "Christian missionary" . He wrote "exempt " on lines 7 , ( Wages , i~ . 3 - salaries, tips, etc .), lines 21 and 22 ,adjusted gross income) , .and line 47 (amount you owe) . On or about April 13, 2004, petitio er submitted Form 1040X, Amended U .S . Individual Income Tax Retur , for 2002 with a signed Form 1040A . On Form 1040A, line 12a (pensions and annuities ) petitioner reported that he received $17,454, and on line 14a (social security benefits) he reported that he received $16,292 . Petitioner claimed that neither of these payments was .taxabl e ,income . On line~21 (adjusted gross incd me) petitioner entered $1,343, and on line 47 (amount you owe ) he entered zero . On February 17, 2003, respondent a sessed,"additional tax" for 2000 together with an accuracy-rela ed penalty under section 6662 and statutory interest . On that s me date respondent sen t petitioner a notice of balance due ; i .e ., , a notice and demand fo r payment within the meaning of section 6303 . Petitioner did no t pay the amount owed . On June 5, 2003, petitioner entere agreement with respect to his unpaid to 9, 2004, petitioner "withdrew" from th e installment agreement , stating that he agreement . The record does not indicate whether petitioner made any payments in connection with this i tallment agreement . On September 22, 2003, petitione r iled a petition i n bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankr ~ptcy Code with the U .S . Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division), and on December 29, 2003, he was 'granted a discharge . The record does not reveal whether respondent filed a proof!of claim in petitioner's bankruptcy proceeding . Moreover , if in -fact respondent filed a proof of claim, the record does not permitius to determine the disposition thereof . ' 10n April 28, 2004, respondent issued a notice of deficienc y for 20gip102 . Petitioner admits that he!received it . Petitioner did not respond to the notice, and as a consequence, on September 27, 2004, respondent assessed against petitioner .a deficiency i n income~jtax for 2002, as determined in the deficiency not :ice , together with an .accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 and statutory interest . Respondent's records indicate that a notice of deficiency for 2000 was sent to petitioner at the last address known to respondent . Although respondent could not produce a copy of th e 2000 deficiency notice sent to petitioner or a copy of a certified mailing list, U .S .-Postal Service Form 3877, or equivalent, claiming that copies of these documents had bee n i . ~ 'Petitioner contacted Senator Barbara Boxer's office ., apparently expressing his outrage that his tax liability for 2000 had not been abated as a consequence 'of his filing for bankruptcy . Senator Boxer 's office forwarded petitioner's letter to theSacramento, California, officeiof the IRS Taxpayer Advocate . A Case Advocate was then assigned .to petitioner's case, and she determined that the tax for 2000 was not dischargeable . 7) misplaced, respondent did provide a TXMO transcript which from certain codes contained therein indicate that a notice of deficiency for 2000 had been mailed to petitioner and tha t petitioner defaulted ; i .e ., petitioner iled to file a petitio n in this Court contesting respondent's determinations for 2000 . On November 17, 2004, respondent sent petitioner writte n notice that respondent intended to levy on petitioner ' s assets to collect petitioner's unpaid tax liabilit y for tax year 2000 . Petitioner did not timely respond to tha t notice . On July 15, 2005, respondent sent etitioner written notice that a lien had been filed with respect to his unpaid Federal income taxes for 2000 and 2002 as well Is with respect to an assessed frivolous income tax return penalty under section 6702 for 2002 . Petitioner was advised of hi right to a hearing under section 6320 with respect to the filing of the lien . On August 1, 2005, petitioner filed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (section 6330 hearing), challenging both respondent's filing of the Federal tax lien and respondent's intent to levy . The form petitioner filed indicated that it .related to years 2000, 2002, and 2003 . 2 During the ensuing months petitioner communicated with respondent's representatives by letter ~s well as by telephon e 2Neither tax year 2003 nor respond nt's intent to levy to collect petitioner's unpaid 2000 tax is at issue herein . See infra . - 6 - to .discuss his 2000 and 2002 tax liabilities . On October 27 , 2005, petitioner requested that his section 6330 hearing b e suspended because he intended to file a motion in the U .S . Bankruptcy Court claiming IRS harassment and violation of hi s bankruptcy discharge . Petitioner's case was assigned to Settlement Officer Martin Splinter of respondent's Appeals Office . On December 22, 2005 , Settlemen t Officer Splinter and petitioner held a section 633 0 hearing via telephone . During that hearing petitioner maintained 11 that the payments he had received from the California Publi c Employees Retirement System (CalPERS)r in 2000 and 2002 ; whic h gave ;, rise to a substantial part of the tax deficiencies, wer e disability retirement benefits not subject to taxation . ,!gyp i Petitioner also maintained that because he .deposited thes e payments into a tax-free bond fund, the payments he received fro m II CalPERS to fund the bond purchases were not taxable . Finally , ii petiti"oner asserted that his 2000 and 2002 tax obligations . were ,!II i discharged in bankruptcy . On January 11, 2006, petitioner'; received a letter from th e CalPERS Benefit Services Division in--response to his request that CalPERS classify . the payments to himpas tax exempt . That lette r statedy,that CalPERS could not comply with petitioner's request because the payments were considered'~pension or annuity payment s which' did not constitute tax-deferred payments under Federal law . 11 r: Petitioner failed to inform Settlement 0 fficer Splinter of the CalPERS letter during their conversatio n held on February 27,, 2006 . Instead, petitioner stated he was still waiting fo r CalPERS to reclassify his payments as t o x exempt . On March 23, 2006, respondent's Ap t eals Office sent a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection ction(s) Under Sectio n 6320 and/or 6330 to petitioner concludi that the filing of th e Federal tax lien against petitioner was both legally and procedurally correct . Attached to that notice was a report by Settlement Officer Splinter regarding p titioner's contentio n that the .CalPERS payments . were exempt from'tax and tha t petitioner did not have any taxable incbme . Settlement Office r Splinter noted in his report : I discussed the case with my Team Manager and he clarified that the CalPERS payments were-only tax exempt if they were paid to .[petitioner] when he was out on disability . However once he became eligible for retirement the payments would not be'tax exem~t . I explained this to [petitioner] on Feb . 27, 2006 . He said that he was ou t on disability and then became eligible for retirement, however the funds are deposited in o a tax free bond fund and should still be considered exe,pt and he feels the y should not be taxable . I again discussed the case with my Team Manager and h e .tax free bond fund . would gs from the fund would not fund the bond are taxable . stated that the funds going int o be considered taxable . Any earni be taxable but the monies used t o The notice of determination mentioned t did not discus s petitioner's bankruptcy discharge . Ad itionally, on March 23, 2006, respondent's Appeals Office . sent petitioner a decision letter,, ., as opposed to a notice of determination, sustaining respondent's intent to collect petitioner's unpaid .2000 tax liability by levy . The .decision letter noted that althoug h petitioner's section 6330 hearing request was not timely filed , I petitioner did receive a hearing equivalent to a section 6330 ;i nearing . Petitioner was informed that he had no right to dispute 11 II in court the decision by respondent'sAppeals Office sustaining respondent's proposed levy action . On April 21, 2006, petitioner filled a petition in this Cour t challenging respondent's determinations . In his petition , I'a Ijo ', petitioner wrote : "No tax liability!,, . The IRS did not calculate m'y itemized deductions nor " [sic] additional two dependents . " III On January 29, 2007, a hearing before Chief SpecialLTria l Judge Peter J . Panuthos of this Court, was held involving : (1) Petitioner's oral motion to withdraw This petition, (2 ) petitioner's oral motion to continue the case, (3) respondent's mo.tionljl'to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds petitioner's ;claims regarding (i) respondent's decision letter sustainin g respondent's intent to collect petitioner's 2000 unpaid income X19 !~~,: tax liability by levy and (ii) sustaining the lien filed by respondent with respect to the section 6702 frivolous : income ta x return penalty for 2002, and (4) respondent's motion for- :summar y judgment . At that hearing petitioner; announced his intention to retainiicounsel . At the conclusion of'the hearing Chief Special - 9 - Trial Judge Panuthos took each of the of rementioned motions under advisement except for petitioner's motion to continue th e case, which was denied by Order dated Ja nuary 29 , 2007 . By a second Order, dated March 13, 2007, Chie f Special Trial Judge Panuthos dismissed for lack of jurisdict ion petitioner's . challenge regarding respondent's filing of a tax lien against petitioner with respect to the collecti n of the penalty unde r section 6702 as well as respondent's in e t to levy o n petitioner's property for his unpaid 20 0 taxes . On April 23, 2007, a hearing befo r Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr ., f this Court was held with regard to : (1 ) Petitioner's motion to withdraw his petition, and (2) respondent's motion for summary judgmen . Petitioner repeated his prior stated intention to retain co nsel and orally moved that he be allowed to withdraw his moti n to withdraw his petition . In an Order dated April 23, 007, Special Trial Judge Armen, among other things (1) denied respondent's motion for summary judgment without prejudice, (2) granted petitioner's oral motion to withdraw his motion to withdraw the petition, (3) remanded the case to respondent's Offi]e of Appeals for consideration of : (i) The basis for t~e February 17, 2003 , assessment with respect to tax year 20 0, and (ii) the effect, i f any, of petitioner's discharge in bank'uptcy on petitioner' s unpaid tax liabilities for 2000 and 20 2, and (4) ordered petitioner to file a response with the Court stating - 1 0 unequivvocally : (i) Whether petitioner received,-or did not ; y receive,,a notice of deficiency deter"mining a deficiency and penalty ;;in his Federal income tax for 2000, (ii) whether . petitioner received, or did not receive, a notice of deficiency determ'ining a deficiency in his Federal income tax for 2002, and, if petitioner admits that he did receive such a notice o f 'I~ 'll deficiency for either or both of those, years, (iii) why I petitioner did not file a petition for redetermination of the deficiency and penalty with the Courti . Special Trial Judg e Armen's,,Order stated that if petitioner did not unequivocall y answerthe aforementioned questions, such failure would be deemed to be:,an admission that petitioner did receive notices of deficiency for those years . O'May 29, 2007, a representative of respondent an d ptetitioner held a telephone supplemental section 6330 hearing . O n August'115, 2007,, respondent's Appeals Office issued a supplemental notice,of determination,in .which respondent dII'etermined that a notice of deficiency'~was properly mailed to petitioner for tax year 2000 . The supplemental notice of determination stated that the TXMOD transcript shows that petitioner was issued .a CP 2000 notice . The CP 2000 notic e p"roposeid changes to petitioner's 2000 ' .income-tax return and provided instructions regarding what petitioner should do . if he I! 4V 1 Ill !1 1. - 11 - .agreed or disagreed with the changes . R spondent's determinatio n was based on transaction code 922 on the TXMOD transcript, which indicates a CP 2000 case . Moreover, the process codes on the TXMOD transcript included code 75, which indicates that a notice of deficiency for 2000 was issued, and ode 90, which indicates that a deficiency for 2000 was assessed by default on February 17,, 2003 . Respondent concluded that petition is bankruptcy filing did not affect petitioner's 2000 and 2002 F .deral income ta x liabilities . The attachment to the'sup lemental notice o f determination stated that the Appeals settlement officer verified that the filing of the notice-of Federal tax lien was in accordance with all legal and procedura requirements and that the requirement set forth in section 63 0(c)(3)(C) that the filing of the tax lien "balances the ne d for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the person that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary" was satisfied . Petitioner filed his report with he Court on August 16, 2007, stating : As .to this Court's first 3-part question (1) Regarding tax year 2000, I do remember receiving some type of tax reassessment from the IRS to which immediately disputed and appealed through the IRS toll-freg telephone system along with follow-up letters, previousl submitted as exhibits in support thereof, in the instant case ; and (2) Yes for 2002, I did receive that notice ; and (3~ I thought I had or did file for re-determination . - 12 - At the trial held on December 10, 2008, petitioner At, l, !It,, reiterated his desire to seek counsel . The trial was the n II I~€' recessed to permit petitioner to contact an attorney, but after a E few minutes petitioner abandoned the ;,effort . As stated suipra p . 2, petitioner declined to testify despite several entreaties by 11 the Court to do so . ili , .II¢ Discussio n A . Standard of Review The judicial review that we are ' required to conduct focuse s on thelpdetermination made by respondent . Unless the underlyin g tax liability of the taxpayer in such a proceeding is properly at issue, we review the Commissioner's determination for abuse o f Ilk, discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , 114,T .C . 604, 610 (2000) ; Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176 ( 2000) . An abuse of discretion i s defined,,as any action that is unreasonable, arbitrary or . capricious, clearly unlawful, or lacking sound basis in fact or law . . Thor Power Tool Co . v . Commissioner , 439 U .S . 522, 532-533 (1979) ; Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) . At-the collection hearing a taxpayer may raise any relevan t isues,ll,relating to the unpaid tax, including spousal defenses, ~ challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action, and offers of collection alternatives . In'addition, he may challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability, but onl y if he did not receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have an .q(cid:127) iI - 13 - opportunity to dispute the liability . S c . 6330( c)(2)(B) ; sec . 301 .6330-1(e)(3), Q&A- E2, Proced . & Admi, . Regs . In making a determination following a collection hearing , the Commissioner must consider : (1) Whe her the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been mete, (2) any relevant issues raised by the taxpa er, and (3) whether the proposed collection action balances the need for efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern that the collection action be no more'intrusive han necessary . Sec . 6330(c)(3) . B . Issuance of the Notices of Deficien c The Commissioner' must send a notic of deficiency to the taxpayer before he may assess, collect, or reduce to judgment most income tax liabilities . United St tes v . Zolla, 724 F .2d 808, 810 (9th Cir . 1984) . If no notice is sent and the period o f limitations has passed, then assessment generally is barred . See sec . 6501(a) . However, the notice nee not be received by the taxpayer, so long as the notice is mai ed to the taxpayer's last known address . United States v . Zolla , supra . A claim that an assessment is barred because no valid notic e of deficiency was sent to the taxpayer is an affirmative defens e under .Rule 39 . See Robinson v . Commis . ioner,. 57 T .C . 7.35 (1972) . Such a claim must be set forth in the arty's pleading, and a mere denial in a responsive pleading w,'li not be sufficient to - 14 - raise the issue . Rule 39 . The taxpayer has the burden,of proo f with respect to such a matter . Rule,r,142(a) ; see Amesbury Apartrrients, Ltd . v . Commissioner , 95~T .C . 227, 240 (1990,) . , Petitioner failed to raise a claim that the assessments against him or . tax years 2000 and/or 2002 are barred . . 'I 114 2 0 0 0 Respondent did not present either .a copy of the notice o f defic eency for 2000 or the certified .11mail list . By Order date d April 23, 2007, the . Court remanded this case to respondent's Appeal's Office to determine whether the assessment for tax year ill, 2000 against petitioner was valid . Complying with that Order , 11 respondent reviewed the TXMOD transcript . The transcript showe d k i 6 that process codes 75 and 90 were entered, which as stated supra p . 11,1indicate the issuance of a notice of deficiency for ta x year 2000 (process code 75) and an assessment of the deficienc y for tax , .year 2000 by default (process, code 90) . In. the April 23, 2007, Order, the Court mandated that lh ~; petitioner file a status report in which he was to state, inter alia, whether he had received a notice of deficiency for, tax year 1 2000 . 'In doing so, we stated : ji . ig pet'itioner has implied, if not tacitly admitted, that he received notices of deficiency for 2000 and 2 .002 . However, in view of petitioner's patent unfamiliarity with tax practice and procedure, we shall require petitioner to unequivocally state whether he received, or whether he did not receive, (1) a notice of deficiency determining a deficiency and penalty in his Federal income tax fo r 20;00 * * * . Ih 15 Petitioner responded to the Court' s mandate stating : "Regarding tax year 2000, I do remember receiving some type of tax re- assessment from the IRS to which I immediatel y disputed Thus, contrary to the Court' s mandate, petitioner did not unequivocally state whether he did o r did not receive a notice of deficiency determining a defi iency and penalty in hi s Federal income tax for 2000 . The Court's Order specifically staled : Petitioner's failure to unequivoca to this Order filed on or before A received or whether he did not rec deficiency for 2000 and 2002 shall admission that he did receive noti those years . ly .state, in a response gust 15, 2007, whether he ive, notices o f be deemed to be an es of deficiency fo r Because petitioner failed to unequ ivocally state that he did not receive a notice of deficiency for 000, petitioner is deeme d to have admitted that he did receive a notice of deficiency fo r that tax year . Petitioner has not alleged any irr egularity in th e information contained in the TXMOD trap script . And we have held that the Commissioner may rely on trans cripts or other reports t o satisfy the verification requirement i'posed by section 6330(c)(1) that the requirements of an applicable law or administrative procedure have been met See Davis v . Commissioner , 115 T .C . 35, 41 (2000) ; chroeder v . Commissioner, T .C . Memo . 2002-190 ; Mann v . . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2002-48 . Ijl We are mindfu l lilt, - 16 - of our holdin g in Butti v . . Commissioner , T .C . Memo .il2008-82 . In that case, the taxpayer stated that he had never received a notice of deficiency for the year at issue . Because the taxpayer affirmatively challenged the existence of Ik ii the noitice, we held that the Commissioner had to produce th e notice'll o:f deficiency itself and could not rely on substitut e methods,of proof . The situation in the .instant case is .' distinguishable from that in Butti . iPetitioner was give n multiple opportunities to challeng e the existence of the, notic e of deficiency for . tax year 2000, but,lin each instance petitioner failed :to take advantage of the opportunity . We thus find that the assessment against petitioner for ta x 11 11 j year 2000 was proper and hold that petitioner may not challeng e his underlying tax liability for that : year . 2i1l! 200 2 Respondent issued a notice of deficiency on April 28, 2004 , for t-axlyear 2002, and petitioner acknowledged that he received it . Therefore, the assessment against petitioner for tax yea r i 2002 was proper, and we hold that petitioner may not challeng e his underlying tax liability for 2002 .1 C' . Review of Respondent's Procedure s iV III' for Abuse of Discretio n On the basis of ou r conclusion that petitioner may not chall enge the underlyin g tax liability for either 2000 or 2002 , we review respondent's determination sustaining the filing of a al ~13 - 17 . - lien to collect petitioner ' s unpaid Fede al income taxes for 200 0 and 2002 for abuse of discretion . Petit oner argues that respondent abused his discretion in seve al ways . First, petitioner-, argues that respondent abused his discretion by : determining petitioner's tax returns 'frivolous,' without justification and without ascertaining the validity of petitioner's exempt income-tax-filing status (RE p . [sic] Nor has respondent made any effort to ascertain whether or not petitioner is exempt from income tax and in, doing so has abused its discretion) . It is well established that arguin that an individual i s exempt from income tax is frivolous and groundless . Accordingly , we do not find. that respondent abused his discretion in rejectin g petitioner's claim . See Homza v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2008- 174 ; . George v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2006-121 ; Wright v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 1990-232 . Next, petitioner argues that respo ndent did not allow him to present evidence that would prove he wa s exempt from tax . Petitioner asserts that respondent refu sed to wait for the response from CalPERS regarding whether the payments to petitioner were tax exempt before issui ng the notice o f determination . We find this argument o be without merit . First, State-entities such as Ca1PERS annot determine whether a payment is subject to Federal income t X . See Morgan v . Commissioner , 309 U .S . 78, 80-81 (1940) Second, CalPERS sent petitioner its response on January 11, 2006, but when Settlemen t Officer Splinter asked petitioner on F6bruary 27, 200,6, whether . he had received the response, petitioner evasively replied that 18 - he was'{r still waiting for it . Third,iICalPERS's letter support s respondent's position, and not petitioner's position . Finally, petitioner argues that,irespondent abused his discretion by not holding a face-to-face section 6330 hearing with petitioner . The record shows that petitioner was,n,,otified of his option to request a face-to-face hearing . However, there is no indication that petitioner ever requested a face-to-face conference before his section 6330 hearing occurred on December 22, 2005 . Moreover, the record does not indicate that petitioner requested a face-to-face conference with respondent after thi s Court remanded the case to respondentl"s Appeals Office to consider the basis of the 2000 assessment against petitioner an d the effect, if any, of petitioner' s discharge in bankruptcy . 1! We have held repeatedly that because a hearing conducted under section 6330 is an informal proceeding instead of a forma l adjudidation, a face-to-face hearing is not mandatory . See Katz II ,. tl. v . Commissioner , 115 T .C . 329, 337-338 (2000) ; Davis v . Commissioner, supra at 41 . Accordingly, while a hearing may tak e If 'i+ + the form of a face-to-face meeting, a'proper section 6330 hearing may be conducted by telephone or by written correspondence . Katz v . Commissioner , supra ; Connolly V . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2008-951 sec . 301 .6330-1(d) (2) ., Q&A-D6, Proced . & Admin . Regs . II, 1 9 We therefore do not find that the holding of the section 633 0 hearings via telephone constituted an abise of discretion . D . Discharge .in Bankruptc y Petitioner argues that his tax liab ility was discharged by the U .S . Bankruptcy Court . We remanded the case to respondent's Appeals Office, in part, to determine wh ether petitioner's ta x liabilities were discharged . In the supplemental notice of determination respondent determined tha petitioner's tax liabilities were not discharged in bank uptcy . This Court has jurisdiction to det rmine, in the context o f a lien proceeding, whether a taxpayer's tax debts were discharge d in bankruptcy . See Washington v . Commi ;sioner , 120 T' .C . 114, 120-121 (2003) . An individual debtor i not to be discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding from certain sp cified categories of debt as provided in 11 U .S .C . section 523(a) (2006) : (a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), . 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt-- (1) for a tax or a customs duty-- (A), of the kind and for the eriods specified in sections 707(a)(3) or 507(a)(8) of this title, whether or not a claim for such t x was filed or allowed ; Title 11 U .S .C . section 507(a)(8) (A)(i) refers to an income tax debt due and owing less than 3 yea s before the date of the filing of a bankruptcy petition as a p iority tax debt . Petitioner's 2000 tax return was requi ed to be filed by April li Y . 20 - . . Therefore, under the terms' of 11 U .S .C . section 15, 2001 . h !la ' .523(a)(1) .(A) , the tax on that year's . return could only be !i IIP~ discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding opened no earlier than April 15, 2004 . -Petitioner's 2002 tax return was required to be filed by April 15, 2003 . Therefore, the tax on that year's return coul d only be discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding opened no earlie r H than April 15, 2006 . , l 'Petitioner filed for bankruptcy on September 22, 2003 . Accordingly, neither petitioner's 20010 nor his 2002 ta x liabilities were discharged in bankrutcy . Conclusion We hold that respondent did not abuse his discretion i n sustaining the filing of a lien to collect petitioner's unpaid Federal income taxes for 2000 and 2002 . We have considered all of petitioner's arguments, and to th e 1.1 extentilli not discussed herein, we find them to be groundless , irrelevant, and/or without merit and thus unworthy of being addressed . To reflect the foregoing,. !li Decision will be entere d for respondent .