TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Interventional Center for Pain Management, P.C.
Docket Number: 4966-18L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/28/2018
Pages: 8

SEC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 INTERVENTIONAL CENTER FOR PAIN MANAGEMENT, P.C., Petitioner(s), v. ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 4966-18 L. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ORDER 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 Joseph Robert Goeke at St. Louis, Missouri containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, this case will be remanded to respondent's Appeals Office and an appropriate Order will be issued. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 28, 2018 SERVED Nov 29 2018 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke November 7, 2018 Interventional Center for Pain Management, P.C. v. 3 Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 4966-18L 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This opinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure and section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section references hereinafter are to the Internal Revenue Code as applicable to the case before us. Our jurisdiction over the present case is provided by section 6330(d) as this is a case petitioned after a hearing before the appeals division pursuant to respondent's attempt to collect the lien. VIA The case involves income tax liabilities for 2006, 2007, and 2010. Many of the key facts have been stipulated. At the time the petition was filed the petitioner's principal place of business was in Missouri. On February 2nd, 2018 respondent issued the petitioner a Notice of 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 (973j406-2250|operat nsgescriberseetlwurw.escHbersaet Determination. On September 7th, 2017 respondent sent petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien filing and your right to a C P Hearing. On September 8th, 2017 the respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien with the 4 the Recorder of Deeds in St. Louis City, Missouri. On October 16th, 2017 the petitioner timely mailed respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing. On December 8th, 2017 the appeals officer mailed the petitioner a letter acknowledging the receipt of the Form 12153 and scheduled a telephonic hearing for January 9th. The telephonic hearing was subsequently rescheduled and the petitioner's powers of attorney participated in a telephonic hearing with the settlement officer on January 17th of 2018. The case is related to prior dockets in this court relative to Income Tax liabilities. On April 12th, 2013 this court entered a decision regarding the petitioner's 2006 and 2007 tax liabilities. On November 12th, 2014 the petitioner requested an installment agreement to pay 4ti-s tax liabilities for those years, and an installment agreement then was put in place based upon monthly payments of $9,750. The respondent approved this installment agreement and, in the approval letter, indicated that the installment agreement would remain in place unless the petitioner defaulted. 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 (973)4064250|operationseescribetsmet|WWWASGibef5Aft However, the parties well knew that the agreement was subject to the Internal Revenue Code, and section 6159 (d) provides for two year reviews of such agreements. Respondent assessed Income Tax liability for 2010 against the petitioner on December 8th, 2014, and on January 8th, 2015 the installment agreement was modified to add outstanding income tax liability for 2010. On June 20th of 2016 additional tax liability was agreed to by the petitioner for 2010, and that tax liability was assessed on June 20th, 2016. Once again, the installment agreement was modified on July 18th, 2016 to include the additional assessed liabilities for 2010. There's no issue in this case involving the liabilities that respondent is attempting to collect, and pursuant to well established case law, my review is based upon an Abuse of Discretion standard. Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T. C. 197 (2009) . Respondent initiated a two year review of the installment agreement that was in place with the petitionery pursuant to a letter that was dated December 26, 2016, When the letter was actually mailed by the service center is in dispute, but it does not appear that it would have been mailed on December 26, 2016. In any event, petitioner's representatives timely reacted to this letter and began a process of interacting We respondent's personnel to address the two year review. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (973)406-2250|operationspertibersnetlmesalbersnet This process has led to the current disagreement we have in this case. Ultimately a revenue officer in the St. Louis area was assigned to the case in the Spring of 2017. She testified that she found the taxpayer had defaulted the installment agreement, and this was likely why she felt filing the notice of lien was appropriate. Her assumption of default was in error. It is one of the problems in this case. Ratitioner well knew that more liabilities were owing for 2010 at the time of the original agreement in 26 and 27, or at least anticipated that 2010 needed to be resolved at the time of the original agreement. After the lien was filed in the Fall of 2017 the petitioner agreed to an increase in the monthly payments. Respondent contends, and the appeals officer testified, that this increase was insufficient to full pay the tax liability, and this apparently was the rationale of the appeals officer in upholding the lien filing by the revenue officer. In any event, the appeals officer refused to negotiate or discuss petitioner's claim that they were not in default of the agreement and therefore the lien filing was inappropriate. The cardinal principle of section 6330 cases is that a balancing of the need to collect the tax, and the problems imposed by that collection on the 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 (973)406-2250(operat nseegrbers.net|wwwasaibersJiet taxpayerg is required. See section 6330(c)(3)(C). We believe this basic principle implies that negotiation is an underpinning of the statute. It is a fundamental part of Congress's attempt in creating the whole collection due process. In the present case, as we previously stated, there was no negotiation about the impact of the lien filing upon the petitioner as it was done by the 62V4 settTë¶reTrt officer without any attempt to negotiate with the petitioner prior to the filing of the lien with the city of St. Louis. We believe that g lien filing was premature, but we believe that it would have been appropriate for the settlement or appeals officer to negotiate with the petitioner on the basis that petitioner should agree to a full pay agreement or that the lien filing was necessary based upon a two year review to ensure that respondent was protected in the event that the tax liability was not fully paid. Given the fact that there was never any discussion of this point, which is fundamental to both parties' positions, we believe this case should be remanded to the appeals division with very specific instructions. This remand is designed to achieve the purposes of section 6330 to facilitate a fair resolution of this matter, which was not even attempted in the prior appeals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I ! 21 22 1 23 24 25 8 hearing. The Court determines that the best course in this. case is to remand to appeals with instructions that the appeals officer is to meet face to face with petitioner's representatives within six months of the order which we will issue pursuant to this opinion, and that the settlement or appeals officer is to negotiate a full payment agreement, if possible. If this full payment agreement is achieved, the lien filing in St. Louis should be withdrawn. If no full payment agreement can be negotiated, the lien filing may remain in place. However, if petitioner can demonstrate that their offer would have provided a full pay agreement in a subsequent proceeding before this court, the Court would entertain a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, it is critical that in the appeals officers' subsequent negotiations the parties carefully address what is necessary for a full pay agreement and reach agreement as to the amount of the monthly payment, which is required for a full pay agreement. If petitioner is willing to do this, then the lien should be withdrawn, as previously stated. The Court will issue an appropriate order consistent with this opinion. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the above-entitled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IlÈEE $13)406-2250|operatÉnscastreersmet|vnwr,esolbersaet matter was concluded.) 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 S73)406-2250|operat seescribersnet|wwwascribersmet