TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Richard G. Merwin
Docket Number: 12894-11SL
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/06/2012
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 RICHARD G. MERWIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 12894-11SL. ) ) ) ) ORDE R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk ofthe Court shall transmit herewith to Petitioner and to respondent a copy ofthe pages ofthe transcript ofthe trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Tampa, Florida, on March 20, 2012, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. 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. April 6, 2012 SERVED APR - 9 2012 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 3 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE JOSEPH ROBERT GOEKE RICHARD G. MERWIN v. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 12894-11SL DATE: March 20, 2012 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 case is before the Court pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463 the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court. Hereinafter section references will be to the Internal Revenue Code, and Rule references will be to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion will be served upon the parties pursuant to Rule 152(b). Petitioner has the burden of proof in this case to establish that the Respondent abused discretion in sustaining the proposed collection action via lien against the Petitioner pursuant to Rule 142(a). This case was submitted based upon stipulated facts and exhibits and the testimony of the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 4 Petitioner. This is a collection due process case over which the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 6330(d). The first issue is whether the Court can consider Petitioner's position that the underlying tax liability is too high. The Court agrees with Respondent's position in that regard, which is that the Petitioner received a notice of deficiency for the year in question, and having received that notice of deficiency the underlying liability cannot properly be the subject matter of a collection due process case pursuant to section 6330 (c) (2) (B). Petitioner at trial candidly admitted that he did receive the notice of deficiency. This leaves the Court with an analysis of whether Respondent abused discretion in sustaining the collection action pursuant to a federal tax lien. Some explanation of the circumstances is required. The tax liability in question arises for the year 2005 when the Petitioner received a notice of federal tax lien filing and your right to a hearing under IRC 6320, he timely filed a request for a hearing regarding the federal tax lien. He also received a final notice of intent to levy for the liability for 2005 and he did not timely file a request for hearing regarding the levy. But Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 Respondent provided an informal hearing as a substitute upon the receipt of his untimely request for a hearing regarding the levy. Petitioner's position relative to the levy was sustained and the settlement officer determined that Petitioner's account should be uncollectible because he simply did not have the funds to support himself and pay the tax liability pursuant to a levy. The analysis regarding the federal tax lien was distinct from that, however, because Petitioner did not timely provide information to the settlement officer for a collection alternative and the settlement officer, having determined that the liability was not properly before her, could only decide whether it was appropriate to have the federal tax lien filing to protect the Respondent's position in the event that the Petitioner came upon some funds or sold his home or took some other steps that might generate money that could be the subject of federal tax lien filing. Specifically the lien would protect Respondent's position regarding the Petitioner's home and any funds that might be generated by the sale of the home. Petitioner really makes no argument why Respondent's position in sustaining the lien was abuse Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 6 of discretion, other than the fact that he finds it embarrassing that he has a pending federal income tax liability. While we're sympathetic to Petitioner's position and we realize he's of an advanced age, we have no basis to overturn Respondent's determination to sustain the lien in this case, and we are left with no recourse but to sustain Respondent's position and a decision to that effect will be entered. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888