TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Lyle D. Guldager
Docket Number: 28389-09S
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: summary
Filed: 07/28/2010
Pages: 6

I )A KG/ T .C . Summary Opinion 2010-104, UNITED STATES TAX COURT LYLE D . GULDAGER, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No . 28389-09S . Filed July 28, 2010 . Lyle D . Guldager, pro se . Susan K . Bollman , for respondent . KROUPA, Judge : This .case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed . Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court , 'All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code), and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated . SERVED Jul 28 2010 and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any othe r case . This collection review case involves a proposed Federal tax 'levy to collect petitioner's unpaid liability he admits he owes for the taxable year 2007 . The sole issue for decision i s whether respondent's determination to proceed with the proposed collection activity was an abuse of discretion . We hold it was not . Background This case was submitted fully stipulated pursuant to Rul e 122, and the facts are so found . The stipulations of fact and their accompanying exhibits are . incorporated by this reference . Petitioner resided in Iowa at the time he filed the petition . Petitioner sold 40 acres of farmland for $310,000 in 2007 in which he had a $103,782 basis . Petitioner reported a $25,289 tax due from the sale for 2007 yet paid only $500 with the return . Respondent assessed petitioner's reported income tax liability for 2007 along with interest and an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax . Respondent notified petitioner of the assessment and demanded full payment . Petitioner made an additional $500 payment but failed to pay the remaining assesse d amount . 3 - Respondent issued petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy (levy notice) to collect the outstanding tax liability for 2007 . Petitioner timely requested a collection due process hearing (CDP hearing) so respondent's Appeals Office could consider an offer in compromise (OIC) . Petitioner's CDP hearing was assigned to Settlement Officer Debra Alcorte (SO Alcorte) . SO Alcorte requested that petitioner submit his complete financial information on Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement . SO Alcorte also aske d petitioner to submit a Form 656, Offer in Compromise, so that SO Alcorte could consider petitioner's OIC . Petitioner submitte d his financial information but never submitted an OIC or Form 656 . The financial information on Form 433-A indicated petitioner ha d equity in his home of approximately $82,000 . SO Alcorte and petitioner had a telephone conference after petitioner failed to appear fora scheduled face-to-face CDP hearing . Petitioner told SO Alcorte that he was . old and lacked the 'funds to pay the balance . He requested that the equity in his home not be considered because he wanted to bequeath his home to his heirs . Petitioner asked that an OIC be considered, yet he failed to submit any offer or Form 656 to SO Alcorte . SO Alcorte explained to petitioner that no OIC would be considered because petitioner had enough equity in his assets to pay the outstanding tax liability for 2007 . Moreover, petitioner never submitted an - 4 - OIC or Form 656 for SO Alcorte to consider . With no actual OIC from petitioner, SO Alcorte closed the case and sustained the ,levy in a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s ) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (determination notice) . Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court requesting review of the determination notice . Petitioner admits he owes the tax yet argues that SO Alcorte abused her discretion in implying that petitioner had to sell his home to realize th e equity in it . Discussion We now decide whether we should uphold the determinatio n notice in this collection review case . We begin with the standard of review . Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not at issue, as here, the Court will review the determination for abuse of discretion . Sego v . Commissioner , 11 4 T .C . 604, 610 (2000) ; Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-182 (2000) . Petitioner does not contest the underlying liability . In fact, he admits he owes the tax . We therefore must decide whether respondent exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law . See Woodral v . Commissioner , 112 T .C . 19, 23 (1999) . Petitioner disputes SO Alcorte's determination that a levy is an appropriate action to collect his unpaid tax liability for 2007 . Specifically, petitioner contends that SO Alcorte abused w 4t her discretion by suggesting that petitioner could sell . his home to pay his tax liabilities . Petitioner contends that this method of collecting taxes is "captious and arbitrary . " The record reflects that petitioner did not submit an OIC or provide other means to secure payment of the outstanding balance during the CDP hearing . Petitioner merely requested that S O Alcorte be empathetic to his plight . We have frequently and consistently held there is no abuse of discretion in sustaining a levy when the taxpayer fails to propose any collection alternatives . Kendricks v . Commissioner , 124 T .C . 69, 79 (2005) ; Cavazos V . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2008-257 . Petitioner failed to submit an OIC or a Form 656 or to propose any acceptable collection alternative to the issuance of the levy notice . SO Alcorte was left with no choice but to sustain the levy notice . We similarly have no recourse .2 Petitioner has not presented any evidence or persuasive arguments to convince us that SO Alcorte- abused her discretion . We therefore conclude that SO Alcorte did not abuse her discretion in upholding the proposed levy action to collect the outstanding tax liability from petitioner for 2007 . 2Petitioner offers the Court a proposal in his reply brief to accept $7,000 of his approximate $32,900 tax liability . It is not the province of the Court to accept any offer . Commissioner , 125 T .C . 301, 320 (2005), affd . 469 F .3d 27 (1st .Cir . 2006) . Murphy v . r- I We have considered all arguments made in reaching our decision, and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be .entered for respondent .