TAX COURT OPINION

Case: V&G Event Services, Inc.
Docket Number: 11765-13L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/24/2014
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 V & G EVENT SERVICES INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 11765-13L 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 petitioners 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 24, 2014 SERVED APR 252014 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa 2 March 20, 2014 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 V&G Event Services, Inc. Docket No. 11765-13L 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. 13 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 14 15 Code in effect for the taxable periods at issue, as later defined, and all rule references are to the Tax 16 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This is a collection review case involving the filing of a federal tax lien and a proposed levy action to collect from Petitioner its unpaid employer' s tax liabilities for the third and fourth quarters of 2011 and its annual unemployment tax for 2011, (the taxable periods at issue). This collection review matter is before the Court on Respondent' s motion for summary judgment. The Court ordered Petitioner to file a response or an 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 objection to Respondent's motion and scheduled Respondent's motion for a hearing on the Court's 3 March 17th, 2014, San Francisco, California, trial 4 5 6 session. Petitioner did not file a timely response or objection to Respondent's motion, despite having been ordered to do so by the Court, nor did the 7 Petitioner appear for the hearing scheduled in San 8 9 10 11 12 Francisco on Respondent's motion. Sharyn Ortega appeared on behalf of Respondent. Findings of Fact The record establishes the following facts: 13 Petitioner was located in Santa Rosa, California, at 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 the time it filed the collection review petition. Respondent assessed the taxes shown on the Form 941, employer's quarterly federal tax return, and Form 940, employer's annual federal unemployment (FUTA) tax return for the taxable periods at issue. Respondent issued Petitioner a proposed levy notice to collect the unpaid tax amounts. The settlement officer sent a letter to Petitioner asking 22 Petitioner to provide copies of signed Forms 941 and 23 24 25 940 for 2012 with proof of full payment, proof of federal tax deposits for the first quarter of 2013, updated profit-and-loss statements, substantiation of 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 all expenses claimed on Form 433-B, certain bank 2 3 4 5 statements for all corporate accounts, and a proposal to resolve this collection action. Petitioner faxed incomplete financial documentation to the settlement officer. 6 Petitioner's representative proposed that the account 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 be deemed "currently not collectible". The settlement officer explained that without complete financial information the settlement officer would be unable to determine Petitioner's ability to pay. Petitioner provided none of the requested financial information, nor did it complete the incomplete information already submitted. The settlement officer advised Petitioner that he would sustain the collection action if he did not receive any of the requested information. As mentioned previously, Respondent filed a summary judgment motion, and the Court scheduled a hearing on Respondent' s motion at the San Francisco, 20 California, trial session beginning March 17th, 2014. 21 Petitioner did not file a response or objection to 22 Respondent's motion, as the Court ordered, nor did 23 Petitioner appear at the scheduled hearing on Respondent's motion. 24 25 Opinio 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 We are asked to decide whether to grant 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 8 materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show 9 that there is no genuine issue as to any material 10 11 12 13 14 15 fact 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. 16 Commissioner, 114 TC 604, 610 (2000) ; Goza v. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 Petitioner's unpaid liabilities for the taxable 2 3 4 5 periods at issue. Respondent 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 6 Respondent's motion granted. We now briefly explain 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 how we reached our decision. First, the record reflects that the only financial information Petitioner provided was incomplete. 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 issulng a determination. See 19 Kreit Mechanics Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner, 137 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 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 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 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, has not asserted any spousal defenses, or otherwise offered any collection alternatives. See Sec. 6330(c)(2). 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 Section 6320 and/or 6330 upon which this case is based, regarding Petitioner's unpaid employment tax liabilities for the taxable periods at issue. The order will also grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the above- 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com