TAX COURT OPINION

Case: John C. Hom
Docket Number: 9778-16L
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 09/19/2018
Pages: 7

46 RS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JOHN C. HOM, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 9778-16 L. ) ) ) ) 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 San Francisco, California 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, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. September 19, 2018 SERVED Sep 20 2018 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke September 11, 2018 John C. Hom v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 9778-16L 3 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 opinion is rendered pursuant to section 7459 (b) of the 11 Internal Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules 12 of Practice and Procedure. Section references in the 13 remainder of this bench opinion are to the Internal 14 Revenue Code as applies to the circumstances of this case. 15 This is a collection due process case and we 16 have jurisdiction to review the IRS Notice of 17 Determination and also the supplemental Notice of 18 Determination pursuant to section 7320 (c) and section 19 6330(d). Our jurisdiction was also triggered by Mr. Hom's 20 timely petition of the initial Notice of Determination 21 22 issued to him by the IRS Settlement Office. At the time that he filed this petition Mr. Hom resided in California. 23 This case is based upon the IRS's effort to collect income 24 25 tax liabilities for 2005 through 2008, via a Federal Tax lien under section 6320. Mr. Hom was issued a notice of (973)4064250lopentionsgescrdaersnet|wwwascribersmt 1 2 3 4 5 6 Federal Tax Lien which informed him of his notice of right for a hearing on August 25th, 2015. He requested a hearing with the IRS within the period provided by section 6320(a)(3). He sought at the hearing release of the Federal Tax lien which had been filed. But the initial hearing process was not successful in resolving the 7 matter. And there was some miscommunication as far as 8 9 the timing of various meetings between Mr. Hom and the Settlement Officer. However, Mr. Hom did not provide the 10 Settlement Officer with the financial information that was 11 requested. This led to the initial Notice of 12 Determination, which was issued on April 1st, 2016. This 13 Notice of Determination sustained the lien filing. 14 Subsequently, Mr. Hom timely filed a petition 15 with this court for review of that Notice of 16 Determination. On July 20, 2017 respondent filed in this 17 court a motion for summary judgment. Mr. Hom filed an 18 opposition to this motion, and the respondent filed a 19 20 21 22 23 response to his opposition. He then filed a response to the response. A hearing was held relative to the summary judgment motion on September 18, 2017 and on December 1, 2017 the Court issued an order denying the motion for summary judgment and remanding the case to respondent's 24 Office of Appeals for a supplemental Collection Due 25 Process Hearing. cribers annou2581e me.en==0=,«.aa..me 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The Court's analysis concluded that Mr. Hom had raised genuine issues of material fact regarding the Appeals Officer's attempt to contact him. And there were some question about whether he had submitted delinquent returns for the years subsequent to those in issue. There's also some question whether he had submitted the financial information that the Settlement Officer had requested. The Court felt that he should have a hearing on remand, and that he could raise issues regarding the 10 withdrawal of the lien, but that he was clearly not 11 entitled to raise any issues regarding the underlying tax 12 liability, because he had had a prior opportunity to 13 dispute that liability. 14 In fact, Mr. Hom had brought case in the Tax 15 Court to dispute the liability. And that case resulted in 16 17 an opinion for the IRS, Hom v. Commissioner, T. C. Memo 2013-163 (2013), aff'd 645 Fed. Appx. 589 (9th Cir. 2016). 18 Subsequently, on the remand of the case, after various 19 communications with Mr. Hom, an actual face to face 20 hearing was held with the Settlement Officer on remand. 21 Once again, the Settlement Officer determined that Mr. Hom 22 23 had not provided the financial information which was necessary for a review of his efforts to withdraw the Tax 24 Lien, and the supplemental notice of determination was 25 issued which sustained the lien in much the same fashion .___----- -~~~~ 6 of the original notice of determination. Mr. Hom's primary argument before this Court in a hearing and trial which was held on September 10, 2018 in San Francisco was that the Settlement Officer had failed to consider the information he had submitted in a letter to the Settlement Officer on remand, which was dated February 18, 2018. This letter does not at all address the financial circumstances or the necessary requirements for a lien withdrawal. Rather, this letter seeks to have a review of the Tax Court's decision which resulted from the opinion previously cited, which was 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. J 13 14 As the Settlement Officer noti-eed, in the supplemental Notice of Determination, Mr. Hom was 15 precluded to raise the underlying liability in the remand 16 case as well as in the original hearing before Appeals, as 17 was noted by the Tax iCourt when the case was remanded, 18 19 because he had previously tried the underlying liability in court. And pursuant to section 6330, upon the issuance 20 of the Notice of Deficiency and his receipt of that notice 21 22 and subsequent timely petition to the Court no subsequent review of the underlying liability is allowed in the 23 _subséiBëRH- Collection Due Process case, 24 25 At the trial of this case on September 10, 2018, the Court again tried to explain that circumstance with 7 Mr. Hom, but nevertheless he persisted in seeking review of the underlying tax liability. The Settlement Officer, in the supplemental notice of determination, clearly explained that the underlying tax liability could not be considered and also pointed out that Mr. Hom had failed to establish any of the statutory requirements for lien withdrawal pursuant to section 6323(j). The standard for our review of the Settlement Officer's determination in a case where the underlying liability is not properly before us is abuse of discretion. Olsen v. United States, 414 F.3d 144, 150 (1st Cir. 2005) . The burden to show such an abuse of discretion is clearly upon Mr. Hom, pursuant to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure and Carter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2007-25; as well as numerous 15 other authorities. 16 We find absolutely no abuse of discretion in the 17 present case, and we find that the actions of the 18 Settlement Officer upon the remand of this case were 19 consistent with the instructions from the Court when the 20 case was remanded, and are also consistent with the 21 statutory obligations of the Settlement Officer. We 22 23 realize that Mr. Hom is frustrated with the determination and the subsequent affirmments by the Court of Appeals, 24 but he fails to understand or at least act upon the fact 25 that at this stage of the litigation he must establish the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 necessary requirements for lien withdrawal and that the underlying liability is no longer in play in this litigation. Because Mr. Hom failed to provide adequate information to sustain the circumstances for a lien withdrawal, we see no abuse of discretion by the Settlement Officer in refusing to permit the withdrawal of the lien. Nor do we see any abuse of discretion by the Settlement Officer in weighing the need for timely 10 collection of the tax liability with the potential harm to 11 Mr. Hom because of his failure to provide adequate 12 financial information for consideration of any collection 13 alternative. As a result we sustain the determination in 14 the supplemental Notice of Determination issued by 15 Appeals, and we will issue a decision for respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25