TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Peter David Carnrite & Misty Dawn Carnrite
Docket Number: 26686-10SL
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/06/2012
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 PETER DAVID CARNRITE AND MISTY ) DAWN CARNRITE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) Docket No. 26686-10SL. ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER 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 Petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Tampa, Florida, on March 21, 2012, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 6, 2012 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 3 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE JOSEPH ROBERT GOEKE CARNRITE v. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 26686-10SL DATE: March 21, 2012 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. The Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This case was tried pursuant to the procedures provided in section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463 (b) the decision entered in this case shall not be reviewed in any other court and should not be treated as precedent for any other case. This case is before the Court based upon our jurisdiction to review collection due process matters under section 6330. The Petitioners had significant unpaid balances on their tax liabilities for the years 2005 through 2009, and the underlying liabilities are not in dispute. The Petitioners did not raise them at the trial of this case. The Petitioners filed three forms, 12153, a request for a collection due process or equivalent 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 hearing in response to two separate proposed levy actions and a filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien. This resulted in a hearing process which the Petitioners eventually tentatively agreed to the payment of an installment agreement in the amount of $445 per month. The record establishes this tentative agreement was in September of 2010. The dispute as framed by the testimony at trial was that Petitioner, Mr. Carnrite, stated that he did not receive any further information from the settlement officer until such time as he was notified that a notice of determination was made. The settlement officer's notes indicate that she mailed the installment agreement to the Petitioners promptly after the tentative agreement and did not receive it back. Then she left a message with Mr. Carnrite on his business telephone number. He agrees that the number was his business number, he agrees he has voicemail, but he denies receiving the phone message. He subsequently e-mailed the settlement officer after she had already issued the notice of determination. He claims that his e-mail should have been considered timely because it was sent before the starting date of the tentatively agreed installment agreement. This case is to be resolved based upon 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 abuse of discretion standard because the underlying liability was not raised. .That standard is set forth in Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). In analyzing the abuse of discretion standard in this case there are several facts that cause us to have questions about the credibility of the Petitioner. The first is that the Petitioners had previously had an installment agreement in which they failed to follow through The other is that the Petitioners are chronically late in paying their estimated tax payments, and that is what has led to their tax liabilities for the years 2005 and 2009. The final fact is that by Petitioners' own admission they owe tax on the year 2010 that they have not yet paid. All these circumstances cause us to have serious doubts about the credibility of PetitionerØ'5statements that they were not aware the installment agreement had been sent to them before November of 2010. Given our concerns with Petitioner credibility we find no reason to challenge the discretion of the settlement officer and we sustain Respondent's determination to proceed with the collection action in this case. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. 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 (Whereupon, at 9:50 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888