TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Southern Allied Contractors, Inc.
Docket Number: 27222-10L
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/28/2011
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT 20217 WASHINGTON, D.C. SOUTHERN ALLIED CONTRACTORS, INC. , Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, . Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ·.Docket No. 27222-10 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 transcript of Trial TJudge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Jacksonville, Florida, on Septentber 21, 2011, containing his oral opinion rendered at the above case before Special the conclusion of trial. th trial of the pages of the findings of fact and In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washingtc·n, D . C. October 28, 2011 SERVED NOV - 1 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 Southern Allied Contractors, Inc. v. Commissioner Docket No. 27222-10L September 21, 2011 3 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. 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 has been assigned pursuant to Section 7443A(b) (4) and Rules 180 through 182. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152. This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment filed February 14, 2011. By order dated February 16, 2011, petitioner was directed to respond to respondent's motion and advised that the failure to do so could result in the motion being granted. The time within which petitioner's response was due was extended by order dated April 13, 2011. No response or objection to respondent's motìon has been.submitted by petitioner. By order dated June 2, 2011, respondent's motion was set for hearing and, if necessary, trial during the 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 Jacksonville, Florida trial session scheduled to begin on September 19, 2011. Pursuant to that order, the hearing was conducted on respondent's motion as scheduled. Lynn M. Barrett appeared on behalf of respondent and argued in support of the motion. There was no appearance on petitioner's behalf. Giving due regard to the representations made in respondent's motion, and taking into account petitioner's failure to respond to the motion, the Court is satisfied that there are no genuine issues as to any material facts in this case. Consequently, disposition of the case upon summary judgment is appropriate. Rule 121(b), Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992.) affirmed 17 F 3rd 965 (7th Circuit 1994). The undisputed facts relied upon by respondent in support of the motion are easily summarized. In a Notice of Determinaticn Concern Collection Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated November 2, 2010, respondent determined that a proposed levy is an appropriate collection action with respect to certain of petitioner's outstanding Federal tax liabilities (the underlying liabilities). A review of the petition shows that.petitioner does not dispute the amount or the existence of the underlying liabilities. Nor does the petitioner complain that responcent's settlement officer failed to "obtain 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 verification from the secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met" as required by Section 633(c) (1). Instead, according to petitioner, respondent's failure to allow an installment agreement in lieu of the proposed levy is an abuse of discretion. Petitioner's request for an installment agreement in lieu of the proposed levy was duly made during the administrative hearing, but petitioner didn't supply the financial information requested by respondent's settlement officer. Under the circumstances, petitioner's entitlement to an installment agreement required an analysis of its current financial information. Maselli v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo '2010-19, see generally Internal Revenue Manual Part 5.14.1.3 (September 26, 2008). Petitioner's failure to supply the requested financial information justifies the settlement officer's rejection of petitioner's request for a collection alternative to the proposed levy. See, e.g., Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1 (2004) affirmed 412 F 3rd 819 (7th Circuit 2005). Ir all other respects, we are satisfied that respondent has proceeded as required by section 6330 and nothing subnitted by petitioner, or otherwise contained in the record, suggests otherwise. To reflect the foregoing, 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 an appropria e order and decision will be entered. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (W2ereupon, at 8:55 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded. ) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888