TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Joseph H. Carlson
Docket Number: 18622-10S
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/27/2011
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JOSEPH H. CARLSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 18622-10S. 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 above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Tampa, Florida, on June 10, 2011, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the o,ral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for gespondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. June 27, 2011 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 ROBERT JOSEPH GOEKE, JOSEPH H. CARLSON v. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 18622-10S DATE: June 10, 2010 THE COURT:i The Court has decided to render oral findings of fadt 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 heard pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. Pursuant to Section!7463 (b). the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court. Section references after this are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years before the Court in this case, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Section 6330(d). Respondent made a determination after Petitioner sought review of Respondent's proposed collection activity via levy, and after Respondent issued a Notice of -freT†e:ieney sustaining the collection action Petitioner timely 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 filed a petition reviewing that action, triggering our jurisdiction for review. The question before the Court is whether Respondent's decisidn to proceed with the collection action is an abuse of discretion. The tax in question is income tax for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006, which Petitioner underpaid in a total amount of over $22,000. This liabflity and interest is the basis for Respondent's current collection action in the present case. The parties entered into a Stipulation of Facts and that Stipulation is made a part of the factual findings of this case by this cross-reference. The Stipulation includes the declaration of the settlement officer phich sets forth her communications with the Petitioner after his request for a review of Respondent's Notice of Levy. There is no dispute that Petitioner had communications with the settlement officer and that the settlement officer requested that the Petitioner provide Form 433-A and supporting documentation so that the Petitioner could pursue his request that his account be deemed to be currently not collectable. The settlement officer also reminded the- Petitioner in the course of her discussions with him and in written 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 5 communications with him, that he had to file his tax returns for 2004 through 2008 in order to be considered for a collection alternative. She allowed the Petitioner untii June 28th, 2010 to provide the information she requested. On June 24th Petitioner called with some questions about the Form 433-A and the settlement officer discussed those questions with him. On July 7th t e settlement officer received the Form 433-A without any supporting documentation. The settlement officer noted that the form the Petitioner submitted showed monthly income in excess of $4,000 and living expenses of approximately $3700. Based upon this the settlement officer determined that Petitioner had monthly disposable income which could be used to pay his delinquent Federal Income Tax obligations. At no time in his discussions with the settlement officer did the Petitioner contest the underlying tax liab;ilities in question. It is notbworthy that these liabilities aro after Petitioner failed to file Federal Income Ta o 04, 2005 and 2006, and at trial Petitioner admitted that he has yet to file any Federal Income Tax returns for subsequent years after the collection years to date. Petitioner's argument at trial was that if Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 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 6 the settlement officer had properly considered his credit card debt he was actually left with no resources to pay any additional Federal Income Taxes. Respondent's positign is that the credit card debt should be treated together with Petitioner's Federal Income Tax liabilities in determining whether Petitioner should be making payments on ¶his Federal Income Tax liabilities, and not receive a priority above his Federal Income Tax liabilities since the credit card debt is not a secured obligation of the Petitioner. We agree with Respondent's analysis. Although wp respect the Petitioner's service to his country as a veteran we understand he has financial difficulties including significant credit card debt 46e cannot find an abuse of discretion in the analysis of the settlement officer relative to the facts of this case, Which leaves us no recourse but to sustain the collectipn action proposed by Respondent, which was determined by the settlement officerg to be appropriate. The settlement officer complied with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code in determining whether gespondent's assessments were appropriate in this case, and in balancing Respondent's need to:collect with the intrusion upon Petitioner. Heritage Reporting Corporation (i202) 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 7 We note that Petitioner's consistent failure to file creates a cycle of increasing delinquencies in Federal Income Tax which must be addressed by the Petitioner and furtder supports the Respondent's determination to proceed with the collection action for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. £15%i his further supports our decision that there is no abuse of discretion on theer part of Respondent in pursuing this collection action. Given our determination and analysis of the record of this case a decision will be entered for Respondent. , This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon; at 1:43 p.m., the trial in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888