TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Philip E. Daoust
Docket Number: 7302-13L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/23/2014
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 PHILIP E. DAOUST, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 7302-13L ORD 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 to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in San Francisco, California on March 20, 2014, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be issued granting respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, DC April 23, 2014 SERVED Apr 24 2014 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa 2 March 20, 2014 3 Philip E. Daoust Docket No. 7302-13L 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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. These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 12 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 13 14 15 16 Code in effect for 2005, and all rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This is a collection review case involving the filing of a federal tax lien to collect from 17 Petitioner his unpaid tax liabilities for 2005. This 18 collection review matter is before the Court on 19 Respondent's motion for summary judgment. The Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 ordered Petitioner to file a response or objection to Respondent's motion and scheduled Respondent's motion for a hearing on the Court's March 17th, 2014, San Francisco, California, trial session. Petitioner did not file a timely response or an objection to Respondent's motion, despite 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 having been ordered to do so by the Court, nor did 2 Petitioner appear for the hearing scheduled in San 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Francisco on Respondent's motion. Joseph Nagy appeared on behalf of Respondent. Findings of fact, the record establishes the following facts. Petitioner resided in Santa Cruz, California, at the time he filed the collection review petition. Respondent examined Petitioner's 10 records, determined that there was a deficiency in 11 Petitioner's liability for 2005 and issued a 12 statutory deficiency notice to Petitioner. 13 Petitioner failed to file a petition to contest the 14 15 16 17 18 19 determinations in the deficiency notice. Respondent thereafter assessed the amounts based on the defaulted deficiency notice. Petitioner failed to pay the assessed amount, so Respondent placed a lien on Petitioner's property. Petitioner timely filed a hearing request. 20 Petitioner stated in his request that he does not 21 22 believe he owes any more for 2005. The settlement officer scheduling the hearing explained that 23 Petitioner needed to provide current financial 24 25 information and needed to file tax returns for 2006 through and including 2011 (delinquent returns), 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 before the settlement officer could consider any collection alternatives. Petitioner and the settlement officer exchanged a series of voice mails. Petitioner provided none of the requested financial information, nor did he file any of the delinquent returns. He stated that he had multiple disabilities and was not able to locate the necessary documentation. As mentioned previously, Respondent filed a summary judgment motion, and . the Court scheduled a hearing on Respondent's motion at the San Francisco, 12 California, trial session beginning March 17th, 2014. 13 Petitioner did not file a response or an objection to 14 Respondent's motion, as the Court ordered, nor did 15 Petitioner appear at the scheduled hearing on 16 Respondent's motion. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Opinion, we are asked to decide whether to grant the summary judgment. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See, e.g., FPL Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, 116 TC 73, 74 (2001) . A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable 24 materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show 25 that there is no genuine issue as to any material 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 facts and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b). Where, as is the case here, the validity of the underlying tax liability is not properly placed at issue, the Court will review Respondent's determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 TC 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 TC 176, 181-182 (2000). We therefore must decide whether Respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 TC 19, 23 (1999). Based upon our examination of the entire record before us, we find that Respondent did not abuse his discretion in determining that the collection action should proceed with respect to 17 Petitioner's unpaid liabilities for 2005. Respondent 18 19 20 21 is therefore entitled to summary judgment in his favor. We issue this bench opinion to explain how we reached our decision, rather than merely stamping 22 Respondent's motion granted. We now briefly explain 23 24 25 how we reached our decision. First, the record reflects that Petitioner never presented any financial information for the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 settlement officer to evaluate any collection alternative, nor did he prepare any of the delinquent returns. We have frequently and consistently held that an officer does not abuse any discretion by refusing to consider collection alternatives if the taxpayer fails to submit the required and requested financial information. Sapp v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-104. In addition, a settlement officer is not obligated to negotiate indefinitely or wait any specific time before 1ssulng a determination. See 12 Kreit Mechanics Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner, 137 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TC 123, 134 (2011) ; Kuretski v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2012-262. Moreover, it is well established that a settlement officer may refuse to consider any collection alternatives if the taxpayer has a history of noncompliance and is not in compliance with current tax obligations. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 TC 107, 111-112 (2007) ; Balsamo v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2012-109. Petitioner has not raised any challenges to the appropriateness of collection, did not assert any spousal defenses, or otherwise offer any collection alternatives. See Sec. 6330(c)(2). 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Accordingly, these issues are now deemed conceded. Rule 331(b)(4). Petitioner has not presented any evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that Respondent abused his discretion. We therefore conclude that Respondent did not abuse his discretion in upholding Respondent's collection action. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for Respondent and an appropriate order will be issued sustaining the determinations set forth in the notice of determination concerning collection actions under Sections 6320 and/or 6330 upon which 13) this case is based, regarding Petitioner's unpaid income tax liabilities for 2005. The order will also grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment. This concludes the Court's oral findings of facts and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com