TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Lorenzo Balmer
Docket Number: 3335-10S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/29/2011
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT 20217 WASHINGTON, D . C. LORENZO BALMER, Petitioner, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 3335-10S 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 transcript of Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Los Angeles, California, on October 24, 2011, containing his oral opinion rendered at the above case before Special the conclusion of trial. tihe pages of the the trial of findings of fact and In accordance with the oral findings of fact and op nion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 29, 2011 SSVED NOV 2 9 2011 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 BENCH OPINION BY SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE LEWIS R. CARLUZZO LORENZO BALMER V. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 3335-10S OCTOBER 24, 2011 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opiniont in this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings· of fact and opinion. Unless otherwise indicated, section references contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant .period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This section 6330 (d) proceeding is a Small Tax Case subject to the provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459 (b) and Rule 152, and the opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. Lorenzo Balmer appeared pro se. Timothy R. Berry, Guy Glaser, and Parvin Singh, specially recognized, appeared on behalf of respondent. In a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action (s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated December 30, 2009 (the notice) , respondent determined that the filing of a Notice of Federal Tax 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 Lien (NFTL) is an appropriate collection action with respect to petitioner's outstanding 2000 Federal income tax liability (the underlying liability). Following further administrative consideration the determination made in the notice was upheld in a Supplemental Notice of Determination Concernin Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated April 29, 2011 (the supplemental notice). The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to challenge the exis[tence or the amount of the underlying liability in this proceeding. Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioner resided in California at the time the petition was filed. Certain income that should have been reported on the 2000 joint Federal income tax return filed by petitioner and his spouse was not included in the income reported on that return (the omitted income). The resultant deficiency in their Federal income tax, along with a section 6662(a) penalty attributable to the omitted income was determined in a notice of deficiency, dated December 23, 2002. Petitioner did not petition this iCourt in response to that notice of deficiency. Consequently the deficiency and related amounts were assessed in- due 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 5 course. Before the notice of deficiency had been issued, petitioner's bankruptcy p oceeding, initiated in July 2002, was terminated by discharge in Ngvember of that year. On the Schedule F, Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claims, submitted by petitioner in connection with the bankruptcy proceeding, petitioner shows respondent as a creditor and "back taxes" for 2000 as a debt. Despite petitioner's position to the contrary, that debt, however, was not dischargeable. See 11 U.S.C. secitions 523(a) (1) (A) and 507(a) (8). The NFTL that gave rise| to this proceeding was filed in June 2009, and petitioner was duly notified of the event as required by section 6320. Administrative hearings contemplated by sectioñ.6320 took place resulting in the notice and supplemental notice. Petitioner did not at the administrative hearings, and does not in this case, request a collection alternative to the NFTL. Instead, äs noted, he argued at the administrative hearings, and argues here that the underlying liability was discharged in the bankruptcy proáeeding. As noted, he is wrong on the point, but more fundamental, his position is n,ot justiciable in this proceeding. 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 Because petitioner received the above referenced notice of deficiency his challenge to the existence and/or the amount of the underlying liability is precluded in this case by section 6330 (c) (2) (B) . In all other respects, the evidence establishes that the obligations imposed upon respondent under sections 6320 and/or 6330 have been satisfied, and nothing petitioner has submitted or presented suggests otherwise. It follows that respondent may proceed with collection as determined in the notice and supplemental notice. ·To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:28 a.m. , the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888