TAX COURT OPINION

Case: William L. Hembree
Docket Number: 15891-08L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/28/2009
Pages: 20

U NITE D STATES TAX ¢OURT WILLIAM L . HEMBREE , Petitioner , V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . ORDERED that the Clerk of the Cour to Petitioner and to respondent a copy transcript of, the trial in the above .ca Gustafson at Jacksonville, Florida, on his oral findings of fact and opinion r of the trial . shall transmit herewith f the pages of the e before Judge Davi d ay 5, 2009, containing i ndered at the conclusio n In accordance with the oral findin decision will be entered for respondent (Signed) David Gustafson Judge Dated : Washington, D . May 28, 2009 SERVED MAY 2 9 2009, 1 Bench Opinion by Judge David Gustafson May 5, 2009 : 2 Hembree v . Commissioner Docket No . 15891108 L 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 4 findings of fact and opinion in his case, and th e 5 following represents the Court's oral Findings of Fac t 6 and opinion . 7 9 The oral Findings of Fact and opinion shall not b e relied on as precedent in any of er case . This Bench Opinion is ma e pursuant to th e 10 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 11 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, .and Rule 152 of the Tax 12 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 13 By a "Notice of Determination Concerning 14 Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330", 15 dated May 27, 2008, the Internal Revenue Service 16 determined to uphold a proposed levy on the assets ofthe 17 petitioner , William L . Hembree, and to sustain the filin g 18 of a notice of federal tax lien against him . ~ f 19 The IRS filed the lien and proposed that'levy i n 20 order to collect unpaid tax, penalties, and interest fo r 21 the years 2000 through 2003, inamounts totalin g 22 approximately $776,000 . This case is an appeal b y 23 Mr . Hembree, under section 6330(d) of the Internal H 24 Revenue Code . For the reasons a plained hereafter, w 25 will uphold the IRS's determinations . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-#888 1 Respondent's motion fo r 2 Respondent filed a motio on 3 April 7, 2009 . In its order of pril 23, 2009, the Court i . 4 deferred ruling on respondent' s otion because it did not 5 include any declaration authent i ating the exhibits i t relied on . 7 Rule 121(d) requires th a "sworn or certified" 8 documents be filed with a motion for summary judgment . 9 Mr . Hembree had objected to the xhibits on grounds of, 10 authenticity . 11 In its April 23 order , e Court therefore too k 12 respondent's motion under advise ent, ordered that the 13 motion would be heard at the cal ndar call, and suggeste d 14 that respondent bring authentica ed exhibits to the 15 hearing, as well as certified co ies of documents that 16 could verify the administrative cts reflected in the 17 transcripts . 18 The Court did so agains t the chance that, i f 19 Mr . Hembree were presented with uthenticated document ~i s I 20 he might withdraw his authentic i y objections . 21 However, when responden t proffered the 22 authenticated documents, Mr . Hem ree did not withdraw hi s 23 objections . Respondent's counse then proposed that 24 respondent's motion be considere in light of the newl y 25 authenticated documents, but th e Court determined not t o Heritage Reporting (202) 628- Corporation 11 2 "sworn or certified" documents be filed with the motion . The Court directed the p 4 trial of the case, and responde 5 denied . 6 Finding nducted on May 4, 2009 , 8 in Jacksonville, Florida . At th trial, Exhibits 1-R 9 through 29-R were admitted int o vidence, over 10 Mr . Hembree's objections of rele ance, authenticity, an d i 11 hearsay . In addition, petitioner William L . Hembree gave 13 his testimony . We find the foll 14 Mr . Hembree did not fil e 15 the years 2000 through 2003 . Ra 16 he "assessed himself" and found hat he did not have 17 enough income to require that re urns be filed . The IRS therefore prepar d substitutes for retur n 19 for each of the four years (se e xhibits . 1-R through , 20 4-R ) under its authority provide in section 6020(b) . The IRS issued to Mr . H ree on April 27, 200 , a 22 statutory notice of deficiency p 23 determining against him deficien 24 $700,000 . Although the record does not include a copy of the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 notice of deficiency, its date and issuance can be 2 inferred from'Mr . Hembree's filings (Exs . 5-R, 6-R) in a 3 state court action against an I S employee, and th e court's order (Ex . 7-R) dismissing that complaint . 5 However, as we explain below, t e question whether a statutory notice was sent is no an issue in this case . 7 On January 2, 2008, the CRS sent Mr . Hembree a, 8 "Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right 9 to a Hearing" (Ex . 11-R) . Tha t levy notice showed a 10 balance due of $776,109 .85 . On January 15, 2008, theI R 11 sent Mr . Hembree a "Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and 12 Your Right to a Hearing Under I RC 6320" . 13 That lien notice showed balance due o f 14 $758,569 .05 (Ex . 12-R) . In response to those notices , 15 Mr . Hembree submitted on January 25, 2008, a timely 16 "Request for a Collection Due Pr ocess or Equivalent 17 Hearing" on Form 12153 (Exhibit 13-R) . 18 Form 12153 directs the tz Lxpayer to give the 19 "reason you disagree with the filing of the lien or the 20 levy", and to "[u]se as much space as you need to exp ai 21 the reason for your request . Attach extra pages i f 22 necessary . " 23 On his Form 12153, Mr . Hembree typed a two wo r 24 reason, "Incorrect math ." To thle form, he attached a 25 page that stated that he is not tax protestor, that he Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-,888 F 1 does not owe any unpaid tax, and that he "is not a 2 taxpayer . Exhibit A and Exhibit B . " 3 His Exhibit A was a statement under penalty ofi 4 perjury that "the above document is true" ; and hi s 5 Exhibit B is a copy of what purports to be a statute or 6 regulation defining (among other things) "taxpayer" f~r 7 purposes of merchant marine provisions . 8 On March 26, 2008, he also submitted a 14-page 9 memorandum (Ex . 21-R) making various arguments an d 10 demands and repeating his request that the IRS provide to 11 him : 12 (a) the statute that makes me subject to and 13 liable for a tax ; 14 (b) a certified copy of each and ever y 15 statutory notice of deficiency relative to me, [and ] 16 (c) a summary record of assessment, IRS form 2-c i 17 relative to me without which IRS collection activity is 18 not authorized . 19 The IRS and Mr . Hembree conducted his collection 20 due process hearing (or "CDP hearing") by telephone or 21 May 8, 2008 . (See Ex . 26-R .) He asked whether the IRS's 22 settlement officer had a valid assessment signed by a n 23 official, as opposed to just cc uter printout s 24 reflecting the assessment -- app rently thereby repeatin g 25 his request for Form 23-C -- andIshe replied that sh e had Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 8 .88 8 1 only the computer printouts . 2 He asked again for the law that requires him t 0 3 file a tax return, and stated h's belief that he was riot 4 required to file a return . Mr . Hembree did not ProPo~ e 5 any collection alternatives to the lien and propose d 6 levy . 7 On May 27, 2008, the IRS issued its Notice o f 8 Determination (Exhibit 9-R), upholding the lien and the 9 determination to proceed with a levy to collect Mr . 10 Hembree's unpaid balance . 11 On June 26, 2008, Mr . Hembree timely mailed his 12 petition commencing this case . To indicate what kind of 13 petition he was filing, he checked the box for "Notice of 14 Determination Concerning Collection Action" ; and to the 15 petition he attached a copy of the notice o f 16 determination dated May 27, 2008 . 17 Line 5 of the form petit on states, "Explain why 18 you disagree with the IRS determination in this cas e 19 (please list each point separat ly) if ; and Mr . Hembre e 20 typed in the following explanation : 21 "I have been unable to ge t adequate assistanc e 22 in computing the amount of the t ax I owe . I am goin g to 23 Tax Court in order to get the as sistance to determine the 24 exact amount I owe . " 25 Thus, on his petition fo3 a lien/levy action file d Heritage Reporting (202) 628 Corporation 888 1 in Tax Court, Mr . Hembree implicitly acknowledged tha hi 2 owed some amount of tax, and raised only the issue of the 3 "exact amount" that he owed . M . Hembree resided in 4 Florida when he filed the petition in this case . 5 6 7 opinion Evidentiary issue s The foregoing facts are derived from documents a s 8 to which Mr . Hembree objected o three grounds : (1) hat 9 no live witness authenticated them, (2) that the y 10 constitute inadmissible hearsay, and (3) that they are 11 irrelevant . 12 The Court considered his objections at the tim e, 13 they were made for each document, and overruled th e 14 objections . The Court's reasons can be briefly 15 summarized thus : 16 One, a live witness is not needed for a document 17 that is self-authenticating, as respondent's exhibits 18 are, under Federal Rules of Evidence 902(1), (4), and 19 (11) . 20 Two, as for hearsay, man of the documents fit ' 21 within the so-called "business record" exception (Federal 22 Rules of Evidence 803(6) ; see, e .g ., Exs . 1-R to 4-R , 23 9-R, 26-R), and others are not earsay because they are 24 admissions of Mr . Hembree (Federal Rules . Evidenc e 25 801(d)(2) ; see, e .g ., Exs . 5-R, 6-R, 13-R, 21-R), and or Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 888 1 0 1 they were offered not to prove ~ he truth of the matter s 2 asserted therein, but to prove ~ hat the statements 3 therein were made or the acts embodied therein were taken 4 (Federal Rules Evidence 801(c) ; see, e .g ., Exs . 11-R , 5 12-R, 13-R, 21-R ) 6 Three, the documents are relevant to show th e 7 facts set out above . However, few of them are essential 8 to the outcome of this case . M . Hembree's petitio n 9 alleges (and he cannot now contiadict) that he received 10 the notice of determination that forms the jurisdictional 11 basis for this suit, and the only arguments that h e 12 advances against the IRS's proposed collection are 13 without merit, as we will show presently . 14 At times other than when the documents wer e 15 offered into evidence, Mr . Hemb ee made genera l 16 objections about the documents, to the effect that the 17 documents cannot be relied on because they are no t 18 signed, or because they are not originals . 19 However, the absence of an individual's signature ; 20 on a document has no necessary bearing on it s 21 admissibility . And under Federal 1 Rules Evidence 1003, "A 22 duplicate is admissible to the ame extent as an original 23 unless (1) a genuine question i raised as to th e 24 authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances 25 it would be unfair to admit th e duplicate in lieu of the Heritage Reporting (202) 628- Corporatio n 1888 1 1 1 original ." Neither of these exceptions applies . 2 Mr . Hembree was given t h opportunity to testif y 3 about any questions he had as to their authenticity, bu t 4 his testimony consisted principally of complaints that i t 5 is possible to alter or fabricate documents, and tha t no 6 authenticating witness had bee n J roffered by respondent . 7 The only alteration of which he complained was ; an 8 immaterial detail about the checking of boxes on Item 5 9 of his Form 12153 (Exhibit 13-R), but he substantiat e 10 his signature on the document an its principa l 11 assignment of error . 12 About most of the documents -- including docum"nt s 13 bearing his signature -- he testified not that they were 14 not genuine but that he did not now if they were, o r 15 that he could not remember if h e had sent or receive d 16 them . 17 In fact, as to documents that were allegedly sen t 18 to him by the IRS, Mr . Hembree would not be in a positio n 19 to know whether they were authenic, because (h e 20 testified) he often throws suc h ocuments away . 2 1 22 Collection Due Process P inciples If a taxpayer fails to p y any Federal income ax 23 liability after notice and dema n Chapter 64 of th e 24 Internal Revenue Code provides t 0 means by which the IRS 25 can collect the tax : Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-,888 1 First, section 6321 imposes a lien in favor of 2 United States on all the property of the delinquent 1 2 thle 3 taxpayer, and section 6323(f) authorizes the IRS to fil e 4 notice of that lien . 5 Second, section 6331(a) authorizes the IRS to 6 collect the tax by levy on the taxpayer's property . 7 However, Congress has added to Chapter 64 of the 8 Code certain provisions (in sub hapter C, Part I, and in 9 subchapter D, Part I) as "Due P ocess for Collections', , 10 and those provisions must be complied with after the RS 11 files a tax lien, and before the IRS can proceed with 12 levy : Within five business days after filing a notice o f 13 tax lien, the IRS must provide written notice of that 14 filing to the taxpayer . Sec . 6320(a) . 15 After receiving such a notice, the taxpayer m a 16 request an administrative hearing before the Office o 17 Appeals . Sec . 6320(b)(1) . Similarly, before proceeding 18 with a levy, the IRS must issue a final notice of intent 19 to levy and notify the taxpayer of the right to a n 20 administrative hearing before t e Office of Appeals . 21 Sec . 6330(a) and (b) (1) . 22 At that so-called collection due process (CDP) 23 hearing, the appeals officer must make a determinatio . 24 whether the proposed collection action may proceed . 25 appeals officer is required to take into consideration Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 888 1 3 1 several things that are not in ispute here : 2 First, the Appeals Officer must verify that the 3 requirements of any applicable law and administrative 4 procedure have been met by IRS personnel (se e 5 sec . 6330(c)(3)(A)) ; but Mr . Hembree alleges in hi s 6 petition no defect of that sort . However, we will late r 7 address two possible verification issues that do not 8 affect the outcome here . 9 Second, the Appeals Officer must consider any 10 collection alternatives propose by the taxpayer (see 11 sec . 6330(c)(3)(B), citing sec . 6330(c)(2)) ; bu t 12 Mr . Hembree proposed none . 13 Third, the Appeals Offic r must determine "whe he r 14 any proposed collection action balances the need for the 15 efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concbern 16 of the person that any collection action be no mor e 17 intrusive than necessary" (see sec . 6330(c)(3)) ; but 18 Mr . Hembree made no contention that pertains to this 19 issue of intrusiveness . 20 Pursuant to section 6330(c)(2)(B) a taxpayer may 21 challenge the underlying tax liability in a CDP hearing, 22 but only if he "did not * * .* have an opportunity t o 23 dispute such tax liability . " 24 As we will explain prese tly, the only issue s 25 Mr . Hembree raised in his CDP h aring were to the eff c t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 888 14 1 that he did not owe the tax tha t the IRS proposed to 2 collect ; but because Mr . Hembree received a notice o f 3 deficiency related to these liabilities, he had a prior 4 opportunity to dispute them . 5 The fact that he did not avail himself of that , 6 opportunity does not negate the fact that the opportunity 7 existed . Thus, as we will show, he was not entitled t o 8 challenge his underlying liability in his CDP hearing, 9 nor to raise it in this lawsuit . 10 If, after the CDP hearing, the Office of Appea s 11 then issues a notice of determination to sustain the lien 12 or to proceed with the proposed levy, the taxpayer ma , 13 appeal that determination to this Court within 30 days, 14 as Mr . Hembree has done, and we now "have jurisdiction 15 with respect to such matter ." Sec . 6330(d)(1) . 16 On review, the Court will generally only consider 17 arguments, issues, and other matters that were actually 18 raised by the taxpayer at the CDP hearing . Giamell i 19 20 Commissioner , 129 T .C . 107, 115 (2007) ; Magana v . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 488, 493 (2002) . 21 However, apart from and n addition to any issue 22 that the taxpayer may have raise during the hearin g 23 under section 6330(c)(2), since the appeals officer i s 24 also required by section 6330(c) 25 applicable laws and administrat i we procedures wer e Heritage Reporting (202) 628 Corporation 888 1 5 1 satisfied, "this Court will review the Appeals office' s 2 verification under section 6330(c)(1) without regard o 3 whether the taxpayer raised [an verification issues]'at 4 the Appeals hearing ." Hoyle v . Commissioner, 131 T .C . 5 No . 13 (Dec . 3, 2008) . 6 Possible verification issue s 7 There are two possible verification issues under 8 section 6330(c)(1) that are arguably implicated here, but 9 they do not affect the outcome of this case : 10 One, in his memorandum submitted during the C D 11 process, and in his oral comments at the CDP hearing, 12 Mr . Hembree suggested that the assessment against him i s 13 not valid in the absence of .a Form 23-C signed by an :RS 14 official . 15 This Court has previously found this argument to 16 be frivolous . See Cain v . Commissioner, T .C . Memo . 2 06 17 148 ; Hawks v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2005-155 ; Rev . 18 Rul . 2007-21 . The IRS is not required to produce a 19 Form 23-c without some showing by the taxpayer of an 20 irregularity in the assessment process . Barker v .,- 21 Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2002-1 3 22 Mr . Hembree alleges no such irregularity ; he 23 alleged only that the IRS failed to provide to him th e 24 Form 23-c . Absent such a showing of irregularity, it i s 25 not an abuse of discretion for a appeals officer to rely Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 1 6 1 on an IRS transcript instead o f a Form 23-c, to obta i 2 the verification required by section 6330 (c)(1) . Nestor 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 162, 1 66-167 (2002 ) Moreover, Mr . Hembree d i i not raise this issue in his petition filed in this Court , and the issue i s therefore conceded . Rule 331(b) (4) ; Swain v . Commissioner , 118 T .C . 358, 36 2 (2002) . Two . In his memorandum submitted during the C DP process, Mr . Hembree requested copy of his statutor~ 10 notice of deficiency . Since the record here does not' 11 include a copy of that notice (issued April 27, 2007), w 12 might construe that as a contention that the Appeal s 13 Officer had failed to make an adequate verification o . 14 the issuance of the statutory notice of deficiency . 15 Under Hoyle v . Commissio er, he need not hav e 16 raised the issue at his CDP hear ing in order to raise it 17 before the Tax Court ; however, r . Hembree did not rais e 18 any such issue in his petition f iled in this Court, a id 19 the issue -- if it ever was an i ssue -- is therefore 20 conceded under Rule 331(b)(4) . 21 We are in fact satisfied that the IRS did issu e 22 and that Mr . Hembree did receive the statutory notice, . 23 since in May 2007 Mr . Hembree filed a complaint in state 24 court against an IRS employee alleging that she mailed a 25 document on April 27, 2008, that involved Mr . Hembree Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 888 1 7 1 "losing in excess of $700,000" - - an obvious referen c t o 2 the statutory notice of deficiency . 3 Therefore, we find that Oven if Mr . Hembree halo 4 challenged the section 6330(c)(1 "verification" in hi s 5 petition, the IRS Office of Appe als did not abuse its 6 discretion in obtaining that v e ification . 7 8 Mr . Hembree 's liability ssue s The reason for Mr . Hembr e's disagreement with the 9 IRS that he stated on his Form 1 2153 ( i .e ., "Incorrec, 1 0 math"), the reasons that he stat ed orally at his CD P 11 hearing, and the sole issue that he stated in his 1 2 petition in this Court (the comp tation of "the exact 13 amount I owe") are not issues of the appropriateness f 14 IRS collection procedures and m e thods . 15 Rather, all the issues M' . Hembree raised are 16 issues pertaining to the underly ing liability -- i .e . , 17 whether Mr . Hembree owed tax and if so, how much h e 18 owed . 19 But Mr . Hembree is not erh.titled to raise suc h 20 liability issues in this suit . His May 2007 complaint in . 21 state court shows that he did receive the statutor y 22 notice of deficiency for his tax years 2000 through 20.03 . 23 Under section 6213(a), he had 90 days thereafter to file 24 a petition in the Tax Court, but he did not do so . 25 That is, he declined (in the words of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 8 1 section 6330(c)(2)(B)) to take the "opportunity t o 2 dispute such tax liability" that was his under the Code 3 The Office of Appeals was therefore barred b y 4 section 6330(c)(2)(B) from considering his liabilit y 5 challenges, and he is barred from pressing them now . Se e Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . I 76 (2000) . 7 Even if Mr . Hembree were entitled to challenge ; hi s 8 underlying liability for income tax for the years i n 9 suit, the challenge that he actually makes is frivolous . 10 His petition intimated only that he wanted the Court 'to 11 determine the exact amount I owe" ; but in fact whe n 12 Mr . Hembree testified at trial is only contention wa s 13 that he had assessed himself as owing no tax, an d 14 therefore he owed none -- the same argument he made i 15 his motion for summary judgment , at pages 12-13 . 16 Although we find that Mr Hembree had a prio r 17 opportunity to dispute his underlying liability and i s 18 therefore precluded from challe ging it here, even if ,Mr 19 Hembree was not barred by secti n 6330(c)(2)(B) from 20 challenging his underlying liability here, we find th e 21 only argument proffered by Mr . embree -- that he owed no 22 taxes because he did not self-assess any -- to be a 23 frivolous position . 24 25 Penalty under section 663 . Mr . Hembree took frivolous positions before th b Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 888 1 9 1 IRS in the CDP process -- in his Form 12153, in hi s 2 subsequent memorandum, and in his oral comments duri n 3 the CDP hearing . 4 Mr . Hembree has also taken frivolous positions 5 before the Tax Court in this prcceeding . He moved fog 6 summary judgment, asserting that he "had insufficient 7 income to warrant the filing of a return" . 8 His principal argument, however, was the asser ion 9 not that the payment of tax is voluntary but .that sel l 10 assessment of tax is voluntary - - and therefore one nee d 11 not pay if one has not assessed himself . He attache d hi 12 own affidavit to confirm that he has not found himsel f 13 liable for tax . 14 We find this argument to be frivolous . 15 Mr . Hembree was warned in the Court's order of April 23 , 16 2009, that if he persisted with that or other frivolou s 17 arguments, the Court would consider imposing against h .im 18 a penalty of up to $25,000 under section 6673 (a) (1) . 19 Nonetheless, at trial Mr~ Hembree repeated th a 20 very argument . Furthermore, in violation of Rule 91, 21 Mr . Hembree refused to stipulate for trial to any facts 22 or to the authenticity of any of the documents tha t 23 respondent proffered -- including even documents that he 24 had signed and submitted to the IRS, and even the not-ce 25 of determination that he had attached to his petition . ' Heritage Reporting (202) 628- Corporation 888 2 0 1 The Court did not find ciedible Mr . Hembree' s 2 professed inability to remember whether he had receiv d 3 or sent documents . Instead, the Court finds that hi s 4 testimony reflected an intention to delay, impede, an d 5 obfuscate the presentation of the case at trial . 6 Section 6673(a) authoriz ~ s the Tax Court to impose 7 a penalty not in excess of $25,0 00, whenever it appeals 8 that proceedings have been insti tuted or maintained b 9 the taxpayer primarily for dela y or that the taxpayer's 10 position in such proceeding is f rivolous or groundless . 11 The statute grants the C urt discretion in 12 deciding whether to impose the p nalty . See Neonatology 13 Associates, P .A . v . Commissioner 115 T .C . 43, 10 2 14 (2000), affd . 299 F .3d 221 (3d C ir . 2002) . Respondent 15 proposes that we impose such a p nalty on Mr . Hembree . 16 All taxpayers are on not ce that abusing th e 17 procedural protections afforded by sections 6320 and 330 18 by pursuing frivolous lien or le y actions for purposes 19 of delaying collection can resul t in sanctions under , 20 section 6673(a) . See Pierson v .lCommissioner , 115 T .C . 21 576, 581 (2000) . 22 The Court gave Mr . Hembree express notice of t i s 23 penalty, in its order of April 23, 2009 . We take int 24 account, in judging his culpability for his contentio s 25 here, the fact that his frivolous arguments in th e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 2 1 litigation follow a string of frivolous arguments made' 2 before the IRS . 3 On the foregoing facts, we will impose a penal ty 4 of $10,000 . 5 Respondent ' s motion for summary judgment will b e 6 denied ; but on the basis of the vidence submitted at 7 trial, the IRS's determination t uphold the filing o f 8 the notice of lien and to proceed with the levy will b"e 9 sustained, and a penalty of $10,000 will be impose d 10 against Mr . Hembree under section 6673 ( a) . Decision ill , 11 therefore be entered in favor of Respondent . 12 This concludes the Court ' s oral Findings of Fa t 13 and opinion in this case . 14 (Whereupon , at 3 :05 p .m . the bench opinion in the 15 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 // ! r 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-14888