TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Michael P. Coghlan
Docket Number: 19460-06L
Judge: Foley
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 10/28/2008
Pages: 8

MICHA]L P . COGHLAN, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONE2 OF INTERNAL 'REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 19460-'06L . Filed October 28, 2008 . Michael P . Coghlan pro se . Gregory -'J 'Stull , for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT . AND OPINION . FOLEY , Judge : Tho issue for decision is'whether responden t abused his discretion n sustaining the decision to file a notic e of Federal tax lien re ating to petitioner's 2000 and 2002 ta x liabilities . FINDINGS OF FAC T On October 30, 2003, petitioner untimely filed his 2000 Federal income tax return on which he reported, but did not pay, a $39,514 outstanding liability and elected married filing separately status . In a notice and demand for payment issued on November 24, 2003, respondent determined that petitioner was liable for the self-reported underpayment and section 6651(a)(1) and (2)1 additions to tax bringing his total outstanding liability to $58,929 . On May 5, 2004, respondent placed petitioner's 2000 account in currently noncollectible (CNC) status, and on May 15, 2004, issued petitioner a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing relating to petitioner's 2000 and 2002 unpaid income tax liabilities . On June 16, 2004, respondent received petitioner's Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, in which petitioner disputed the proposed levy . On November 19, 2004, Ms . Norman, a settlement officer, held a face-to-face hearing .(levy hearing) with petitioner . . During the levy hearing, petitioner disputed the balance due with respect to the 2000 tax liability . Respondent, in a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination) issued on March 24, 2005, recommende d 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are .to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and in effect for the .yea.rs in issue . . 3 that petitioner's CNC status remain in effect until his financi a .status improved . On May 1, 2005, .. etitioner submitted to respondent~a $6,49 2 offer-in-compromise ( IC) . On June 12,,2005, petitione r increased the' OIC' to ' 12, 000 . On October 3r-2005-1 respondent ; rejected the revised IC, and petitioner',appealed the rejection . . Respondent subsequent y sustained his decision . On October 13, 2 05, :respondent issued petitioner'a Notic e of Federal Tax Lien Fling and Your-Right td °a ° Hearing Under IRC 6320 (lien notice) relating to'2000 and 2002 . On November_11 , 2005 , petitioner file the Form 12153 to dispute the validity o f the'tax'lien and the- underlying liability relating to 2000 . . On January 26,'2006, Mr . Engelbrecht, a'settl'ement officer in Memphis, scheduled a telephone hearing for February,28,°2006 . a letter dated Februa y 7, 2006,' petitioner requested a :face-t face hearing . On February :13, 006, .the_Memphis'Appeals Office transferr e the hearing'request~t respondent's Chicago Appeals Office . In ;a letter dated-May 18,- 006, Ms :-'Dismukes, a settlement officer in Chicago ;scheduled a ,June 19, 2006 ;_ telephone hearing wit h petitioner . On June 5, 2006, petitioner,'who had financial information he wanted the settlement officer to'review, left Ms . Dismukes°a voice mail=message requesting,a face-to-face-hearing ., ; On June 16, 2006, Ms.. Dismukes returned petitioner's call . 4 - During the telephone conversation, petitioner requested that the lien be released, explained the circumstances relating ;rto the filing of his 2000 income tax return, and reiterated his .desire for a face-to-face hearing . In response, Ms . Dismukes explained the Appeals process, informed petitioner that he had not established,a basis for withdrawal of the lien, and scheduled a face-to-face hearing for June,30, 2006 . On June 28, 2006, petitioner left Ms . Dismukes a voicemail message stating that he would like to reschedule the hearing . Ms . Dismukes did not return petitioner's call or . reschedule . the hearing . On August 22, 2006, respondent issued a notice of determination . denying petitioner's appeal relating to the filing of the tax lien . On September 25, 2006, petitioner, while residing in Illinois, filed his petition with this Court seeking a review of the notice of determination . OPINION Section 6320 provides for Tax Court review of the Commissioner's administrative determinations to proceed with the collection of tax liabilities . Section 6320(b)(1) provides that if a taxpayer requests a hearing ., "such hearing shall be held by the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals ." Section 6320(c) provides that section 6330 shall .apply to the conduct and judicial review of the hearing . Section 6320 hearings are informal proceedings and may, but are not required to, consist of _ 5 - a face-to-:face meeting,-one or more written' ors oral communications betwee an-Appeals officer'and the taxpayer, o r some combination thereof . Sec. . 301 :6320-1 (d) (2)-, Q&A-D6,' Proced ' & Admin . Regs ..' ;._,see K tz v . Commissioner , 115 T .C . 329, 33 7 (2000) . Ordinarily, taxpayer who presentsl in the ;reques t relevant, nonfrivolou reasons for disagreement with the propos e levy will be offered n opportunity for a ;face-to-face .hearing the Appeals,Office c l sest to the taxpayer's residence . Sec . 301 .63200=1(d)(2) Q&A D7, Proced . & Admin . :Regs . The"taxpayer may raise atthe Appeals Office hearing an y relevant' issue .relati .gto the unpaid tax or, the lien notic e including spousal def nses, challenges to the appropriateness of, the collection action ,- and-offers of collection-alternatives . Sec . 6330(c)(2)(A)' . taxpayer may also raise the underlying tax' liability if the pers~n .did not receive a notice,of deficiency for, or did°°'not otherwise-have .an opportunity-to_dispute, the ta k c)(2)(3) . Following the hearing, th e Appeals' Officer must(cid:127)d termine whether the collection action-may proceed, taking-into a count verification that all requirements of any applicable la w r administrative procedure have been met, relevant issues raised during the hearing,-and-whether-th e collection action bal a ced the need . for the efficient collection of taxes with the intr siveness .of'the(cid:127)collection action . .Se e sec ., 6330(c)(3) . .. I Petitioner contends that he was not afforded an appropriate hearing and that Ms . Dismukes failed to meet him face-„to-face . Ms . Dismukes and petitioner had a telephone conversation on June 16, 2006, during which petitioner raised issues relating to the tax liability and the lien action . On multiple occasions, petitioner requested a face-to-face hearing to allow him to present information regarding his financial status and responsibilities (i .e ., child support payments, counseling expenses, and health insurance premiums) . Petitioner further contends that he was not given the opportunity to assert that these financial considerations were justifications to :+abate his tax liability . Even though petitioner was not afforded a face-to-face hearing, he has not been prejudiced . Furthermore ., petitioner requested that the Court not remand his case to the Appeals Office . It is neither necessary nor productive to remand this case . See Nestor v . Commissioner ,' 118 T .C . 162, 167 .(2002) ; Lunsford v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 183, 189 (2001) . Moreover, release of the lien is not justified . See sec . 6325(a) . Petitioner also contends that he was defrauded by his former wife who elected married filing separately, rather than married filing jointly, status . Petitioner claims that his tax liability, would have been lower had they filed a joint 2000 return . Petitioner, however, had the opportunity to dispute the 7 - underlying liability at'the levy hearing and , thus, is no t entitled to challenge) the underlying liability . See Bell v . Commissioner , 126 T . C 356, 358-359 (2006) . Where the validit y of the liability is n t properly part of the appeal, the Court reviews the Appeals o ficer's administrative determination for abuse of discretion . See Davis v . Commissioner , 115 T .C . 35, 39 (2000) ; see also Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 181-1 .8 2 (2000) . Petitioner conte ds that, in determining whether to sustain the lien notice, resp ndent abused his discretion by failing to consider petitioner's financial responsibilities and the revised : OIC . Respondent's de ermination, however, had a sound basis i n fact and law and was t .arbitrary or capricious . First, the OI C was submitted and rej cted before respondent issued the lie n notice . Second, petitlioner did not raise any collectio n alternatives . Third, properly weighed the i against the need for t e efficient collection of taxes . Finally, the assessment of taxe and the recordation of the lien wer e carried out in accorda ce with all appropriate statutes and regulations . Accordin ly, we sustain respondent's determination . e not addressed are irrelevant, moot, o r meritless . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entere d for respondent .