TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ernest Enax
Docket Number: 17374-07L
Judge: Swift
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 04/28/2008
Pages: 5

K ADM. I RECORDED SERVICE STAT . .5T JUDGE FILE S T .C . Memo . 2008-11 6 UNITED STATES TAX COUR T ERNEST ENAX, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 17374-07L . fled April 28, 2008 . Ernest Enax, pro se . Laura Price , for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SWIFT, Judge : This matter is befor us in this collection case under section 6330 on respondent's otion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under s ction 6673 . All section references are to the a plicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code . SERVED APR 2 8 2008 - 2 - FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found . .On documents he filed with respondent as his 2001, 2003, and 2004 individual Federal income tax returns, petitioner reported no income and no tax liability, and petitioner made tax-protester arguments . On audit, respondent did not treat the above documents relating to 2001 and 2003 as valid tax returns, and on January 28, 2004, and January 31, 2005, respectively, using third-party payor information, respondent prepared for petitioner substitute 2001 and 2003 individual Federal income tax returns . On July 7, 2004, respondent mailed to petitioner a notice of deficiency for 2001 .1 On May 9, 2005, respondent mailed to petitioner a notice of deficiency for 2003 . Respondent treated the document petitioner filed for 2004 as petitioner's 2004 Federal income tax return, and on April 14, 2006, respondent mailed to petitioner a notice of deficiency for 2004 . Petitioner did not file a petition with this Court relatin g to the above notices of deficiency, receipt of which petitione r 1 The first page of respondent's July 7, 2004, notice of deficiency to petitioner for 2001 incorrectly stated that the tax year involved was 2000 . However, documents attached to the notice of deficiency stated correctly that the notice of deficiency related to petitioner ' s 2001 Federal income taxes . - 3 - does not contest, and the deficiencies were assessed on March 28, 2005, November 11, 2005, and August 28, 2006, respectively . Respondent also assessed penaltie s against petitioner under section 6702 for 1997, 2003, and 2004 . On March 27, 2007, respondent mai l d to petitioner a notic e of intent to levy in order to collect p titioner's outstanding Federal income taxes for 2001, 2003, a n 11 2004, and outstandin g penalties for 1997, 2003, and 2004 . R e pondent also mailed to petitioner a notice explaining petitio n is right to an Appeals Office hearing, which hearing petition e requested on March 30 , 2007 . The collection hearing petitioner equested was held between May 29 and June 25, 2007 . In connectio with petitioner's collection hearing petitioner mailed to respondent's Appeals Office numerous tax-protester arguments nd a partially completed Form 433-A, Collection Information State ent for Wage Earners an d Self-Employed Individuals . In his communications with respond e is Appeals Office, petitioner raised only tax-protester ar g ments . As a result , respondent's Appeals officer did not hol a face-to-face hearing with petitioner, and petitioner's Appea l Office hearing was conducted via correspondence and over t h telephone . Petitioner' s 2005 and 2006 Federal ncome tax returns were not timely filed . On July 17, 2007, respondent's Appeals Office mailed to petitioner a notice of determination sustaining respondent's - 4 - proposed levy action . OPINION Petitioner objects to respondent's motion for summar y judgment solely on the ground that petitioner was entitled to a face -to-face hearing with respondent's Appeals Office . We disagree . During petitioner's Appeals office hearing, petitioner made only tax-protester arguments, and because petitioner received notices of deficiency for the years in issue he was not entitled to contest the underlying tax deficiencies respondent had assessed . See sec . 6330(c) (2) (B) . Petitioner was given the opportunity to contest the section 6702 penalties for 1997, 2003, and 2004 . As stated, however, petitioner made only tax-protester arguments, and petitioner offered no documentation or other credible evidence to establis h that respondent in any way had committed error or abused his discretion in sustaining respondent's proposed levy action . At the time of petitioner's collection hearing, petitioner was not current on his tax obligations for 2005 and 2006 . Petitioner has a history of not filing tax returns and o f making tax-protester arguments, and petitioner has outstanding - 5 - assessed Federal income taxes due for number of years in addition to those involved in this cas 2 Respondent acknowledges that respo dent is pursuing collection action against petitioner fo Federal income taxes petitioner owes for years not involved 'n this case . Petitioner offers no credible evidence that respon ent is pursuing collection action relating to years bef re us in this action in violation of the stay of section 6330( e On the evidence before us, petitio er is not entitled to a face-to-face hearing . See sec . 301 .633 -1(d)(2), Q&A-D8, Proced . & Admin . Regs . Accordingly, we shall g ant respondent's motion for summary judgment, and we sustain re pondent's proposed levy action relating to petitioner's outstan ing and assessed 2001, 2003, and 2004 Federal income taxes and 997, 2003, and 2004 section 6702 penalties . In light of petitioner's tax-protes er arguments, made before respondent's Appeals Office and h rein, we also impose a penalty under section 6673 on petitioner in the amount of $2,500 . 2 Total outstanding Federal income axes and penalties that have been assessed by respondent against petitioner for all ope n years apparently are in excess of $237,00