TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Perry Westcott
Docket Number: 4499-03L
Judge: Chiechi
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 11/09/2006
Pages: 8

ADL RECORDED SERVICE JUDGE T.C. Memo. 2006-245 | FIldS UNITED STATES TAX COURT PERRY WESTCOTT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4499-03L. Filed November 9, 2006. Perry Westcott, pro se. Alvin A. Ohm, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION CHIECHI, Judoe: This case arises from a petiti·on filed in response to a notice of determination concerning collection action(s) under section 6320¹ and/or 6330 (notice of determina- tion). ¹All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code at all relevant times. ÈfWED ~NOV 0 9 M - 3 - not disclosed by the record,4 and interest as provided by law. (We shall refer to any such unpaid amounts, as well as interest as provided by law after March 4, 2002, as petitioner's unpaid 1998 liability.) On March 4, 2002, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of balance due with respect to petitioner's unpaid 1998 liabil- ity. On August 17, 2002, respondent sent petitioner a final notice of intent to levy and notice of your right to a hearing (notice of intent to levy) with respect to petitioner's unpaid 1998 liability. On August 20, 2002, in response to the notice of intent to levy, petitioner filed Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (petitioner's Form 12153), and requested a hearing with respondent's Appeals Office (Appeals Office). In petitioner's Form 12153, petitioner stated: Taxes owed from 1998 are offset by losses in 1999 & 2000. Cannot tax return & we cannot do it ourselves & cannot afford CPA. including IRS, find anyone, to complete On August 30, 2002, a representative of respondent's collec- tion division had a telephonic conference with petitioner (August 4Although not disclosed by the record, we presume that the additions to tax that respondent assessed were additions to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1) and (2). not file his 1998 return until July 2, 2001, and did not pay the tax due shown in that return when he filed it. is because petitioner did That By letter dated September 27, 2002 (September 27, 2002 letter), a certified public accountant representing petitioner and his spouse (petitioner's C.P.A.) sent to petitioner Form 1040 that he had prepared on behalf of petitioner and his spouse for their taxable year 1999 (petitioner's 1999 return). Petitioner's C.P.A.'s September 27, 2002 letter, inter alia, gave petitioner instructions regarding filing the 1999 return. That letter stated in pertinent part: One copy is for your records. Enclosed are two copies of your 1999 federal return. copy to the Internal Revenue Service. date the tax returns at 2. income tax Send the other Please sign and the bottom of Form 1040, page taxes have been paid in full. Your Federal include a check. Mail your Federal return, on or before April 17, 2000™ to: INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CENTER Austin, TX * * * Do not We recommend that you send the returns using certified mail or other delivery service with postmarked receipts. At a time not disclosed by the record before February 24, 2003, petitioner filed petitioner's 1999 return that petitioner's C.P.A. had prepared. Petitioner's 1999 return showed a business loss of $82,592 from Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business (Schedule C), and negative total income and negative adjusted SThe date of Apr. 17, 2000, for filing petitioner's 1999 return that was stated in petitioner's C.P.A.'s September 27, 2002 letter was wrong. not send petitioner's 1999 return to petitioner until around Sept. 27, 2002. As noted above, petitioner's C.P.A. did • I will still attempt if you believe I have abused my dis- issued and then, cretion, you can file suite with the United States Tax Court. any remaining liability by helping you request an alternate collection method, but you MUST get your 2000 and 2001 returns filed first. While you are getting these other two prepared, please get the 2002 return prepared also. to help you take care of I am sorry that the filing of the 1999 return did not completely take care of your liability, but it did help. [Reproduced literally.] Please call me if you have any questions. On March 7, 2003, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of determination with respect to his taxable year 1998. At the time respondent issued that notice, petitioner had not filed a tax return for his taxable year 2000 or his taxable year 2001. Petitioner was not able to prepare himself Form 1040 for his taxable year 2000 because of the complexity of claiming a busi- ness loss to which he believed he was entitled for that year and the lack of records to substantiate any such loss.6 The notice of determination that respondent issued to petitioner with respect to his taxable year 1998 stated in pertinent part: "Since you are not in compliance with all your filing requirements, we cannot enter into any type of alternate 6Petitioner was able to prepare Form 1040EZ, Income Tax Return for Single and Joint Filers With No Dependents (Form 1040EZ). However, he was not eligible to use Form 1040EZ for his taxable year 2000. tions for Form 1040EZ for the taxable year 2000 of which we take judicial notice, business that must be reported in Schedule C was not eligible to use Form 1040EZ. That was because, according to the instruc- a taxpayer who had income from a trade or _ 9 _ the subsequent years returns he has been unable to get prepared. During the CDP proceedings, Mr. Westcott was able to get his 1999 return filed and the carry back reduced the.balance due by about $20,000.00, but is still about $29,000-.00 due. names and telephone numbers of two low income tax preparation services from the Taxpayer Advocate and have provided those to Mr. Westcott with the advice that he get his 2000 and 2001 returns filed and I would I have received the there . help him file an Offer in Compromise-, doubt as to liability. But because these returns are still outstanding, collection action. I cannot enter into any type of alternate III. Balancino Efficient Collection And Intrusiveness. Mr. Westcott cannot enter into any type of alternate collection action because he is not filing of his returns; the only method of efficient collection. literally.] in compliance with the proposed levy is [Reproduced therefore, In June 2005, after petitioner filed a petition with the Court in response to the notice of determination that the Appeals Office issued with respect to his taxable year 1998, petitioner filed Form 1040 for his taxable year 2000 (2000 return). In petitioner's 2000 return, petitioner claimed a business loss of $36,514 from Schedule C and negative total income and negative adjusted gross income of $17,299. On dates not disclosed by the record after March 7, 2003, petitioner filed tax returns for his respective.taxable years 2001 through 2004. Petitioner received general assistance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on how to navigate the processes relating The record does not disclose the contents of the respective tax returns that petitioner filed for his taxable years 2001 through 2005. . - 11 - Sego v. Commissioner, supra; Goza v. Commissioner, supra. In petitioner's 2000 retur.n that he filed in June 2-005, over two years after respondent issued the notice of determination with respect to his taxable year 1998, petitioner1claimed a business loss of $36,514 fròm Schedule C and negative total income and negative adjusted gross income of $17,299. At trial, petitioner failed to introduce any reliable evidence that estab- lishes any of such claimed- amounts.9 On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he has a loss for his taxable year 2000 .(or any other year) that eliminates peti- tioner's unpaid.1998 Iiability. We now turn to petitioner's position that the IRS violated petitioner's equal protection rights under the Constitution of the United States (Constitution). In support cME that position, . • petitioner argues that section 6404(d) relating to the abatement of tax implicitly required the IRS to.prepare, or to assist him in preparing, his tax return for his taxable year 2000. Neither section 6404(d) nor any other provision in the Internal Revenue 8(...continued) petitioner with respect to his taxable year 1998. . 9When petitioner filed his petition in this case, he was unable to state or quantify the amount of loss for his taxable year 2000 that should be carried back to his taxable year 1998. That he had not yet filed his 2000 return. Petitioner did not file his 2000 return until June 2005. is because, when petitioner filed the petition in this case, - 13 - However, we take judicial notice that the instructions to Form 1040EZ, Form 1040A, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040A),¹¹and Form 1040 state in pertinent part: Assistance With Your Return. prepare your return. 1040EZ, 1040A, or 1040 with Schedules A and B to you and other taxpayers in a group setting. An assister will explain a Form IRS offices can help you * * * The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) protects against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides protection against Federal discriminatory action "so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process". Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 642 (1969); see Ward v. Commissioner, 608 F.2d 599, 601-602 (5th Cir. 1979), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1979-39. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment also has been held to incorporate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 364-365 n.4 (1974); Ward v. Commis- sioner, supra at 602. Assuming arguendo that the IRS provided assistance to certain taxpayers with respect to the preparation of Forms 1040EZ, Forms 1040A, and Forms 1040 with only Schedules A and B, ¹¹Petitionerwas ineligible to use Form 1040A for his tax- That was because, according to the instructions able year 2000. for Form 1040A for the taxable year 2000 of which we take judicial notice, a taxpayer who had income from a trade or business that must be reported in Schedule C was not eligible to use Form 1040A. - 15 - We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of the parties that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent.