TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Samuel Tannenbaum
Docket Number: 5434-07L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/26/2008
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 I ADM . RECORD ED SERVIC E SAMUEL TANNENBAUM, Petitioner , v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Docket No . 5434-07 L O R D E R 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 of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Hartford, Connecticut on June 4, 2008, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Diane L . Kroupa Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 26, 2008 i1~ED JUN 2 6 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa June 4, 200 8 2 Samuel Tannenbaum 5434-07 L 3 The Court has decided to render oral findings of 4 fact and opinion in this case , and the following represents 5 the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . These oral 6 findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon a s 7 precedent in any other case . 8 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 9 authority granted by Section 7459( b) and Rule 152 . All 10 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, a s 11 amended and in effect for 2000, the year at issue , and all 12 rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 13 Procedure . This is a collection review case involving the filing of a notice of federal tax lien to collect Petitioner's unpaid liabilities for the taxable year 2000 . 17 This collection review matter is before the Court o n 18 Respondent's motion for summary judgment filed on April 17, 19 2008 . 20 Samuel Tannenbaum did not appear, nor did an y 21 representative appear on his behalf . Frank Louis appeared 22 on behalf of Respondent . 23 Findings of Fact . The record establishes, or the 24 parties do not dispute, the following : Petitioner resided 25 in Connecticut at the time he filed the collection revie w Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 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 petition in this case . Petitioner filed a return for th e year at issue showing an $88,230 tax liability . Petitione r had paid $23,200 of estimated taxes before filing the return for 2000 but paid no other taxes before filing the return . Respondent assessed the amount of unpaid taxes reflected o n the return for 2000 . Petitioner failed to pay the assesse d taxes, and Respondent issued to Petitioner an IRS Lette r 3172, dated August 1, 2006, entitled "Notice of Federal Ta x Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing," for th e outstanding tax liability for the year at issue . (Thi s notice shall be referred to as the "Lien Notice ." ) In response to the Lien Notice, Petitione r requested a hearing . In his hearing request, Petitione r wanted to raise collection alternatives of an installmen t agreement or an offer-in-compromise rather than the appropriateness of the lien action . Petitioner als o mentioned his poor health and sought to abate the penalties . The settlement officer assigned to Petitioner' s hearing informed Petitioner to complete a Form 433-A , entitled "Collection Information Statement," and provid e proof of household income and expenses . The settlemen t officer also informed Petitioner that he must complete an d file delinquent tax returns for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 . The letter also informed Petitioner that, if he failed t o provide the necessary information, the settlement office r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 would be unable to consider any collection alternatives . 2 Petitioner failed to provide any information and 3 failed to attend any scheduled hearings, citing healt h 4 issues . Without any additional information from Petitioner, 5 the settlement officer sustained the proposed collectio n 6 action by lien in a Notice of Determination Concerning 7 Collection Action(s), under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated 8 February 13, 2007 . Petitioner timely filed a petition t o 9 contest the proposed lien action to collect Petitioner's 10 unpaid tax liability for the year at issue . Again , 11 Petitioner respectfully requested, in the petition, that he 12 be given a hearing, that all penalties be abated, and that 13 he be permitted to seek an installment agreement for payment 14 of any arrears, or that Respondent accept an offer-in- 15 compromise . 16 As stated previously, Respondent filed a summary 17 judgment motion, and Petitioner filed an objection on May 18 15, 2008, by the required deadline . Petitioner states, in 19 his objection, that his poor health prevented him from 20 attending any of the scheduled hearings or providing any of 21 the required documents . He asked for further adjournment of 22 any collection action because of his poor health . 23 Opinion . We are asked to decide whether to grant 24 summary judgment . Summary judgment is intended to expedite 25 litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials . See Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 e .g ., FPL Group, Inc . v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 73, 7 4 2 (2001) . A motion for summary judgment will be granted if 3 the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions , 4 admissions, and other acceptable materials , together wit h 5 the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue 6 as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered 7 as a matter of law . See Rule 121(b) ; Electric Arts, Inc . v . 8 Commissioner , 118 T .C . 226, 238 (2002) . The moving party 9 has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material 10 fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter 11 of law . See e .g ., Rauenhorst v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 157, 12 162 (2002) . The party opposing summary judgment must set 13 forth specific facts that show that a genuine question of 14 material fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations 15 or denials in the pleadings . Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd . 16 v . Commissioner , 91 T .C . 322, 325 (1988) ; Casanova Co . v . 17 Commissioner , 87 T .C . 214, 217 (1986) . 18 Standard of Review . We begin with the standard of 19 review . Where the validity of the underlying tax liability 20 is properly at issue, the Court will review the matter on a 21 de novo basis . Sego v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 604, 61 0 22 (2000) . Where, as is the case here, the validity of the 23 underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, 24 the Court will review Respondent's determination for abuse 25 of discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , supra ; Goza v . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-182 (2000) . We must decide 2 whether Respondent'exercised his discretion arbitrarily , 3 capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law . See 4 5 Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) ; Fargo v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-13 . Based upon ou r 6 examination of the entire record before us, we find tha t 7 Respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining that 8 the collection action should proceed with respect t o 9 Petitioner ' s unpaid liabilities for 200I 0 .~Ok 10 We now discuss general collection proceedings . 11 Section 6321 imposes a lien in favor of the United States o n 12 all property and rights to property of a taxpayer whe n 13 demand for payment of that person's liability for taxes has 14 been made, and the person fails to pay those taxes . Th e lien arises when the assessment is made . Sec . 6322 . 16 Section 6320 provides that the secretary shal l 17 furnish the taxpayer described in Section 6321 with written 18 notice that a lien was filed . The person may then request 19 an administrative review hearing to be conducted in a manner 20 consistent with the procedures set forth in Section s 21 6330(c), (d), and (e) . Sec . 6320(c) . If the taxpaye r 22 requests a hearing, he or she may raise at that hearing any 23 relevant issues relating to the unpaid tax . Sec . 24 6330(c)(2) . Relevant issues include any appropriate spousal 25 defenses, challenges to the appropriateness of collection, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 and possible alternative means of collection, such as an 2 installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise . Sec . 3 6330(c)(2)(A) . After the hearing, the settlement officer is 4 required to make a determination that addresses issues th e 5 taxpayer raised, verifies that all requirements o f 6 applicable law and administrative procedures have been met, 7 and balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes 8 with the legitimate concern of the person that an y 9 collection action be no more intrusive than necessary . Sec . 10 6330 (c) (3) (C ) 11 The record reflects that the settlement officer 12 properly verified that all of the legal and procedura l 13 requirements have been met . The settlement office r 14 confirmed, using a transcript of Petitioner's accounts, that 15 assessments were properly made for the year at issue, that 16 appropriate and timely notices were sent regarding th e 17 assessments, and that Petitioner was properly informed of 18 his rights with respect to the lien action . 19 The record also reflects that Petitioner does not 20 dispute, in the petition, that the settlement officer 21 committed an abuse of discretion . Any issue not raised in 22 the petition is deemed conceded by Petitioner . In addition, 23 Petitioner requested, but never presented, any collection 24 alternative to Respondent or presented any financia l 25 information for Respondent to evaluate any alternatives . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 Petitioner was also delinquent with his filing and payment 2 requirements for 2002, 2003 , 2004, and 2005 . We have 3 frequently and consistently held that an officer does not 4 abuse any discretion by refusing to consider collectio n 5 alternatives if the taxpayer fails to submit the required 6 and requested financial information . It is not an abuse of 7 discretion for personnel to refuse to consider collectio n 8 alternatives where a taxpayer fails to submit requested 9 financial information . Sapp v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 10 2006-104 ; Pricchio tt ino v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004- li 231 ; Newstat v . Co mmissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-208 . 12 The settlement officer also addressed the issue s 1 Petitioner raised in his hearing request to abate the :4 penalties and to request Respondent to allow him a n installment agreement or accept an offer-in-compromise from 16 Petitioner . The settlement officer explained that Petitioner needed to provide the necessary financia l 18 information and needed to be current on his filing an d 19 payment requirements . Finally, the record reflects that the 20 settlement officer properly balanced the need for efficient 21 collection of taxes with Petitioner's legitimate concer n 22 that any collection be no more intrusive than necessary . 23 Petitioner has not asserted any spousal defenses 24 or otherwise offered any additional collection alternatives . 25 See Sec . 6330(c)(2) . Accordingly, these issues are now Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 deemed conceded . Rule 331(b)(4) . 2 While we are sympathetic to Petitioner ' s health 3 issues , Petitioner has not presented any evidence o r 4 persuasive arguments to convince us that Respondent abuse d 5 his discretion . We, therefore , conclude that Respondent did 6 not abuse his discretion in upholding Respondent ' s proposed 7 lien action to collect from Petitioner outstanding tax 8 liabilities for 2000 . 9 To reflect the foregoing , decision will be entered 10 for Respondent , and an appropriate order will be issue d 11 sustaining the determinations set forth in the Notice o f 12 Determination Concerning Collection Action ( s) under Section 13 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 13, 2007, upon which this 14 case is based, regarding the unpaid liabilities for th e 15 taxable year 2000 . The order will also grant Respondent's 16 motion for summary judgment . 17 This concludes the Court ' s oral findings of fact 18 and opinion in this case . 19 (Whereupon , at 9 :50 a .m ., the bench opinion in the 20 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 21 j/ 2 2 23 // 24 // 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888