TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Joseph Toth
Docket Number: 2385-12L
Judge: Laro
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/01/2013
Pages: 6

CMS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JOSEPHTOTH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 2385-12 L. ) ) ) ) ) ) OR 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 the pages of the transcript of the trial in the abovereferenced case before Judge David Laro at Detroit, Michigan, containing his Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion, rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion, a Decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) David Laro Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. July 1, 2013 SERVED Jul 01 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge David Laro May 21, 2013 Joseph Toth v. Commissioner Docket No. 2385-12L THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 6 Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case, and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 the following are the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code. Petitioner refers to Joseph Toth, IRS refers to the Internal Revenue Service, and Appeals refers to the IRS Office of Appeals. Petitioner resided in Michigan when he filed the petition. Background Respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) against petitioner to collect his tax liabilities for years 2003 through 2006 (subject years). On January 25, 2011, petitioner received the 21 Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a 22 23 24 25 Hearing under IRC 6320 and timely submitted a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing (CDP request), for the subject years. In the CDP request, petitioner requested an 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 offer in compromise (OIC), payment schedule, currently not collectible status, lien subordination, lien discharge, and lien withdrawal. Petitioner also challenged the underlying tax liabilities under section6330 (c) (2) (B). The CDP request further stated that petitioner would provide the requested financial information. In addition, petitioner requested a face-to-face hearing. On September 22, 2011, Appeals sent petitioner a letter to schedule a telephonic hearing for November 8, 2011. The letter stated that petitioner would be afforded a face-to-face hearing if he submitted the requested documents including petitioner's financial information. Petitioner never submitted any such documents. On November 8, 2011, Appeals called petitioner at the scheduled time for the telephonic hearing; petitioner did not answer his telephone. On December 23, 2011, Appeals issued a 20 Notice of Determination, sustaining respondent's 21 22 23 24 collection action. The Notice of Determination stated that petitioner had a prior opportunity to dispute the underlying tax liabilities during a prior CDP levy hearing request and through a prior Tax 25 Court petition. The notice further stated that 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 petitioner failed to present any information that would support withdrawal of the tax lien or any collection alternatives. The notice confirmed that 4 all legal.and administrative requirements for the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 collection action have been met. See sec. 6330 (c) (3). Petitioner filed a timely petition asking us to review Appeals' determinations. We held a trial. Petitioner testified and was given an opportunity to present any relevant evidence. At trial, petitioner argued only that he was entitled to a face-to-face hearing because he wanted to present evidence to support certain deductions during the face-to-face hearing. However, petitioner failed to present any such evidence at trial. Discussion We review the Commissioner's determinations in a CDP hearing generally for abuse of discretion; except that if the validity of a taxpayer's underlying liability is properly at issue, we review the matter de novo. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107, 111 (2007). The only issue for decision is whether Appeals erred in not holding a face-to-face CDP hearing. Petitioner made no argument and presented 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 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 no evidence relating to his remaining claims raised in the petition, and we deem petitioner to have conceded those issues. Levin v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 698, 722-723, 1986 WL 22028 (1986), aff'd, 832 F.2d 403 (7th Cir.1987). We find that Appeals did not abuse its discretion in not holding a face-to-face CDP hearing in petitioner's case. Even though a CDP hearing may consist of a face-to-face conference, it may also be conducted by correspondence, by telephone, or by review of documents. Appeals has the discretion to grant a request for a face-to-face conference if the taxpayer asserts relevant and non-frivolous arguments concerning his underlying tax liability or if the taxpayer proposes a collection alternative provided that the taxpayer has fulfilled certain obligations before any proposed collection alternative could be considered. Sec. 301.6330-1(d) (2), Q & A-D6, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Appeals requested certain information from petitioner, including petitioner's financial information, but petitioner failed to provide the requested information. Thus, we hold that a face-to- face hearing was not warranted and would have been futile. See Gould v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. No. 17 (2012). Finally, we note that Appeals has complied 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 with all requirements under section 6330(c) (3) when 2 3 it issued the Notice of Determination. In sum, we hold that respondent did not act 4 arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in 5 6 7 8 fact or law in sustaining the filing of the NFTL. In reaching this holding, we have considered all arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not discussed herein, we find them to be irrelevant, 9 moot, or without merit. Decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com